Court File and Parties
OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 16948A/25
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
TYLER THOMAS STEPHENS
Defendant
Counsel: Ms. H. Cook and Mr. M. Fabre, for the Crown Mr. J. Miglin, for the Defendant
HEARD: January 21 and April 24, 2026
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Introduction
1In January 2024, Tyler Stephens and Nathan Lopez were close friends. They consumed alcohol and cocaine together.
2On January 22, 2024, they wanted drugs. They came up with a plan to get drugs. It involved breaking into a home whose occupants were known to be involved in the drug trade, and robbing them of their drugs.
3In the course of executing the plan, Mr. Stephens inflicted lethal injury to Steven Turgeon.
4Mr. Stephens pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He faces a lengthy penitentiary sentence for his crime.
The Circumstances of the Offence
5Mr. Stephens’ mother owned a business that was located beside 294 Kitchener Avenue in Oshawa. Steven Haladay, Steven Turgeon, and a third man lived at that address. Both Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez were familiar with the residence there. Mr. Stephens had purchased cocaine from its occupants.
6On the evening of January 22, 2024, Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez were running low on alcohol and cocaine. They came up with a plan to break into 294 Kitchener Avenue. Mr. Lopez was to enter the residence and, with a show of force, get Mr. Haladay and/or Mr. Turgeon to hand over whatever drugs they had. Mr. Stephens was worried he would be recognized by the residents. He agreed to “stand watch” outside the house. He would enter it only if necessary to assist Mr. Lopez.
7Mr. Lopez arranged for someone to drop him off an air powered pistol, a BB gun that resembled a handgun. He did not know if the BB gun worked or was even loaded. It looked broken, and the handle was covered in tape. He did not attempt to fire it.
8Mr. Lopez was to enter 294 Kitchener Avenue, show the BB gun, and make a demand for drugs, while Mr. Stephens remained outside the house as a lookout. Both Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens believed that once the BB gun was displayed, Mr. Haladay and/or Mr. Turgeon would turn over whatever drugs they had without any resistance. Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens were prepared to use some physical force if necessary, but given the victims’ ages and disposition they did not think it would be necessary.
9Mr. Lopez arranged for a youth, who I will refer to as T.W., to drive him and Mr. Stephens to the house, and wait nearby as a get-away driver. Mr. Lopez knew the youth, but Mr. Stephens did not. Mr. Lopez also arranged for the youth to drop off a bottle of alcohol to him at the friend’s home where he was staying. Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens consumed the alcohol before leaving to commit the robbery.
10Mr. Stephens believed that if he needed to enter the residence to back up Mr. Lopez, he also would need a display of force. Accordingly, he located a knife at the home of Mr. Lopez’s friend, and concealed it on his person.
11At approximately 11:00 p.m. T.W. picked up Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens. T.W. later described both men as wearing black hoodies and masks.
12T.W. drove them to the area of 294 Kitchener Avenue. Mr. Lopez instructed him to park in a residential lot where he believed there would be little, if any, video surveillance. Mr. Lopez told T.W. to wait 30 to 40 minutes for him and Mr. Stephens to return, and if they did not, to leave.
13Mr. Lopez and Mr. Stephens approached the front door of 294 Kitchener Avenue. The TV was on inside the house, and it appeared someone might be in the living room. Mr. Lopez tried to open the front door, but it appeared to be locked. As a result, he and Mr. Stephens climbed over the fence to the side door to the residence. That door was locked, but with force they were able to push it open.
14Mr. Lopez entered the house and went up the stairs. Mr. Stephens remained standing in the threshold of the side door, as a lookout.
15When Mr. Lopez got to the top of the stairs and began to enter the living area, he saw Mr. Haladay sitting on the couch. Mr. Lopez pointed the BB gun at Mr. Haladay. At that very moment, Mr. Lopez was blasted with bear spray. His skin and eyes began to burn. He desperately wanted to get out of the residence. He ran toward the living room window, and dove through the blinds. The window was closed, and the glass shattered around him.
16Mr. Lopez landed on the ground, got up, and hid outside waiting for Mr. Stephens to join him.
17Mr. Stephens heard a commotion coming from inside the residence. He could not see what was happening, but he heard the sound of glass breaking. He decided he needed to enter the residence to assist Mr. Lopez. He removed the knife from its sheath. He held the knife in his right hand, down beside his waist area. He went up the stairs into the house. There were no lights on inside. As soon as he got to the top of the stairs, the bear spray in the air burned his eyes and made it difficult for him to breathe.
18Mr. Stephens did not see anyone. He went into the dinning room area, where he encountered Mr. Haladay standing between him and the living room area. Mr. Stephens hit Mr. Haladay with his left hand and knocked him down to the couch.
19Mr. Stephens then went to the front of the living room. He saw that the front window was broken. He turned around to go back, but was immediately confronted by Mr. Turgeon. Mr. Turgeon had something in his hand and was holding it out towards him. Mr. Stephens thrust at Mr. Turgeon once with the knife. He used his other hand to shove Mr. Turgeon. He wanted to get Mr. Turgeon away from him. Mr. Turgeon reacted like he had been hurt, but did not fall to the ground.
20Mr. Stephens tried to open a door in the living room, but was unable to get out. He left the house by jumping to the ground through the broken front window. He saw Mr. Turgeon exiting the house from the front door, and so he ran from the home.
21Mr. Stephens did not know or appreciate the extent of Mr. Turgeon’s injuries. In fact, Mr. Turgeon collapsed in the driveway of the home. Civilians and first responders arrived, and found him with a large abdominal laceration from which his intestines were protruding. He was transported to hospital and pronounced deceased shortly after.
22In the meantime, Mr. Stephens joined up with Mr. Lopez. The two continued running away from the house. CCTV captured Mr. Lopez throwing the BB gun over a fence into a commercial lot. Police later seized the BB gun. CCTV also captured Mr. Stephens disposing of the knife he used to stab Mr. Turgeon, in another corner of the lot. Police later seized the knife. It had Mr. Turgeon’s DNA on the blade, and Mr. Stephens’ DNA on the handle.
23Mr. Stephens and Mr. Lopez eventually separated. Mr. Lopez found his way back to T.W.’s vehicle. He instructed T.W. to drive around looking for Mr. Stephens. When they could not find him, Mr. Lopez had T.W. take him back to the house where he and Mr. Stephens had been picked up.
24Meanwhile, Mr. Stephens continued walking around, but could not find T.W.’s vehicle. He discarded the knife sheath, his coat, and his balaclava. He was arrested when police officers came upon him and noticed blood on his hands.
25In a statement to police, he denied any involvement in the incident at 294 Kitchener Avenue. He said that he had been at another location consuming alcohol and cocaine with Mr. Lopez before getting a ride to a friend’s house.
26A post-mortem examination determined that the cause of Mr. Turgeon’s death was a single stab wound of the abdomen, with two cuts (in and out) in the descending abdominal aorta. The wound was 5 centimetres in length, and 13 centimetres deep. According to the pathologist, the injury would be associated with a significant loss of blood, and would be rapidly fatal without medical intervention.
The Victim Impact Information
27Mr. Turgeon’s niece, Peggy Turgeon Harrison, wrote that her uncle was an important person in her life. He was more like a big brother than an uncle to her. It distresses her that no one had the chance to say good-bye to him. His entire family feels his loss.
28Steven Haladay wrote that he is constantly looking over his shoulder, and is fearful all the time. He cannot trust anyone anymore.
The Circumstances of Mr. Stephens
29Mr. Stephens was 32 years old when he committed the offence. He is now 34 years of age. He has been in custody since his arrest on January 22, 2024.
30As Mr. Stephens advised that he believes there is Indigenous ancestry in his father’s family, I ordered a Gladue report. Aboriginal Legal Services were told by a family member that there is Indigenous ancestry on the paternal side, but they were unable to prepare a report because they could not confirm the specific nature of Mr. Stephens’ Indigenous ancestry, nor could they address the way in which he has been influenced and affected by Indigenous ancestry.
31Mr. Stephens grew up in a setting that his sister describes as a loving, two-parent home, in which the children were supported and cared for. Mr. Stephens was kind-hearted, reliable, and respectful of others in his youth.
32This changed when Mr. Stephens’ parents separated. His father had become a substance abuser. Mr. Stephens’ sister describes the period following the separation as a difficult and confusing time. Mr. Stephens, who was then 15 years old, loved his father deeply. He had a strong bond with him, and tried to maintain that connection. Unfortunately, it led to his father introducing him to street drugs, including crystal meth. This changed the trajectory of Mr. Stephens’ life.
33Mr. Stephens completed high school, then commenced but did not finish a community college program. He worked in his mother’s business at various points. During this period he developed a severe drug addiction. It adversely impacted his life choices and priorities, and led him into criminal activity.
34Mr. Stephens has a very lengthy adult criminal record dating back to 2009. Most of his prior offences are property crimes and failing to comply with court orders. Notably, he has five prior convictions for break and enter, and one prior conviction for assault.
35Mr. Stephens is the father of a three year old. The child is currently in the care of Mr. Stephens’ mother. Mr. Stephens hopes to be present in his daughter’s life, although he has been in jail for much of it to date.
36Family members and friends who know Mr. Stephens well indicate that while in custody, he has shown signs of reflection, and a desire to rebuild his life. He has expressed remorse for his offence, and a commitment to sobriety.
37While in pre-sentence custody, Mr. Stephens has been locked down for all or part of a day because of staffing shortages, on hundreds of occasions. He has been triple-bunked on hundreds of days. In an affidavit, he described additional difficult aspects of his detention, including unsanitary conditions in the jail. In April 2025 he was stabbed by someone using a “shank”.
38In his remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Stephens said he recognizes the devastation he caused to Mr. Turgeon’s family, and he accepts full responsibility for his actions.
The Positions of the Parties
39On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Cook submits that Mr. Stephens should be sentenced to 10 to 12 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one. She acknowledges that Mr. Stephens pleaded guilty, he has been subjected to difficult conditions of pre-sentence custody, and he has family support. However, Ms. Cook emphasizes the aggravating factors, including that the stabbing occurred in the context of a home invasion robbery, Mr. Stephens was the stabber, weapons and disguises were used by both offenders, and Mr. Stephens has a lengthy criminal record including for break and enter offences. A sentence must be imposed that gives substantial weight to deterrence and denunciation.
40Ms. Cook seeks a DNA order, a s. 109 order for life, a non-communication order, and a forfeiture order.
41On behalf of Mr. Stephens, Mr. Miglin suggests that the applicable range of sentence for this kind of manslaughter is 8 to 12 years in jail, but seeks a sentence of 7 to 8 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody calculated at one and a half to one and enhanced beyond that because of the harsh conditions of the pre-sentence custody. He submits that this offence is somewhat unique because of the minimal degree of violence involved. Only one stab wound was inflicted by Mr. Stephens, to propel the deceased away from him. Mr. Miglin emphasizes the mitigating factors, including Mr. Stephens’ guilty plea, his addiction, and his family support. He asks that Gladue principles be given some consideration because it is clear that Mr. Stephens has Indigenous background and a drug addiction is connected to his criminality.
42Mr. Miglin voiced no objection to the ancillary orders sought by Crown counsel.
The Principles of Sentencing
43The Criminal Code (“the Code”) sets out a number of principles of sentencing that govern a judge’s determination of the appropriate sentence in any given case.
44Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.
45Section 718.1 of the Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that proportionality is the chief organizing principle in determining a fit sentence. See R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 10.
46Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances, that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence not be unduly long or harsh, that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the community be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
47In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at para. 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction”. The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge. See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 143.
Sentencing in Cases of Manslaughter
48Under s. 236 of the Code, the offence of manslaughter is punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
49Manslaughter is recognized as a serious offence because it involves the taking of a life, and ordinarily attracts a lengthy sentence. See R. v. Head, [1985] O.J. No. 153 (C.A.). That said, because a diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for manslaughter, the caselaw reflects a wide variation in the range of sentence. The Court of Appeal for Ontario directed in R. v. Simcoe, 2002 CanLII 5352 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 884 that to arrive at the appropriate sentence in a particular case of manslaughter, the sentencing judge must consider the context in which the manslaughter occurred, meaning the case-specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. This was echoed in R. v. Devaney (2006), 2006 CanLII 33666 (ON CA), 213 C.C.C. (3d) 264 (Ont. C.A.), where the Court rejected the concept of sentencing based on pigeon-holing the facts of a case into a subcategory of manslaughter, in particular that of “aggravated manslaughter”, in favour of a case-by-case comparison of circumstances.
50In two relatively recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions, R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800, at paras. 26-32, and R. v. Wight, 2022 ONSC 5137, at para. 43, trial judges identified three broad ranges of sentence in manslaughter cases. These ranges, which of course are not air-tight compartments, or etched in stone, are as follows:
6 to 8 years in jail in less serious cases, for example where the accused was not aware of a firearm possessed by a co-accused, or where the accused was a youthful first offender with significant rehabilitative potential;
8 to 12 years in jail in cases where significant aggravating factors are present, such as the use of a firearm, or brutal violence against an elderly victim;
12 to 15 years in jail where the most serious aggravating factors are present such as a significant criminal record, planned violence, or active participation in brandishing or discharging firearms or in a planned home invasion involving beating of victims.
Analysis
51I agree that the appropriate range of sentence for this manslaughter where Mr. Stephens inflicted the injury that caused death is 8 to 12 years in jail.
52I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. Aggravating and mitigating factors assist in identifying both the gravity of the specific offence, and the degree of responsibility of the particular offender.
53The aggravating factors in this case include:
This manslaughter occurred in the context of a planned, deliberate, and targeted home invasion. In 2006, the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced home invasion to be a “serious and increasingly prevalent” crime. See R. v. Wright (2006), 2006 CanLII 40975 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 13. The Court said at para. 14 that, “The obligation of the Court is to give proper recognition to the sanctity of the home, to protect all citizens against such intrusions, and to thereby preserve the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.” The need to do so has not diminished over time.
The motivation for the home invasion was to rob its occupants of drugs.
The home invasion occurred at night. In planning the robbery, Mr. Stephens along with Mr. Lopez anticipated that Mr. Turgeon and/or Mr. Haladay would be at home. In fact, when the duo arrived at the house, the television was on, signalling that someone likely was present inside. Nonetheless, Mr. Stephens participated in pushing the locked side door open to assist Mr. Lopez in gaining entry to the house. When Mr. Stephens entered the house, he knew from the commotion inside that it was occupied.
In planning the robbery with Mr. Lopez, Mr. Stephens anticipated that there might be resistance by the occupant or occupants, and that he might enter the house to back up Mr. Lopez. For that reason, Mr. Stephens chose to arm himself with a tool of intimidation that also was a weapon capable of causing physical harm, a knife.
Mr. Stephens wore a mask so that his identity was disguised from the residents of the home, who knew him.
Before he entered the house, he withdrew the knife from its sheath, and held it in his hand, so that it was readily available to him.
While Mr. Stephens did not know the extent of Mr. Turgeon’s injuries, he knew from Mr. Turgeon’s reaction that he had inflicted physical harm to him. In addition, he had assaulted Mr. Haladay. He fled the house and did nothing to summon help for its occupants.
He took steps to try to conceal his involvement in the events. He disposed of the knife he used to stab Mr. Turgeon. He discarded the knife sheath, his coat, and his balaclava. He lied to the police as to his whereabouts that evening.
Mr. Stephens has a lengthy criminal record that includes break and enters, a prior assault, and multiple breaches of court orders.
He was bound by two probation orders at the time of the offence, one imposed in October 2022 and another in November 2023.
Additionally, he was bound by a five year weapons prohibition order imposed in September 2021.
The events of January 22, 2024, significantly impacted Mr. Turgeon’s family, and Mr. Haladay.
54There are mitigating factors. They include:
Mr. Stephens pleaded guilty, which is a sign of remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for his offence. He pleaded guilty before a trial date was set. In his remarks at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing he expressed remorse and took responsibility for his actions.
Mr. Stephens had a disadvantaged youth in that his father, who should have been protecting his well-being and guiding him to maturity, instead introduced him to street drugs. This set Mr. Stephens on the path to drug addiction.
The conditions of Mr. Stephens’ pre-sentence custody have been exceptionally harsh. In particular, he has been locked down for all or part of a day due to staffing shortages on more than 400 occasions, and triple-bunked at intervals on more than 500 days, some of which overlapped with lockdowns. In addition, he was the victim of a stabbing while in custody. I do bear in mind that while this factor is important, it cannot justify an inappropriate sentence. See R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, at para. 60.
Mr. Stephens has very strong family support. This has the potential to assist in his positive reintegration into the community on his release from jail.
He is reported to have Indigenous ancestry. However, because of the lack of detail about its nature and its impact on him, it is of minimal mitigating effect.
55The fact that Mr. Stephens is an addict does not mitigate his moral blameworthiness for this offence. A substance abuse problem does not lessen the responsibility of an offender who participates in the planned invasion of a home for the purpose of robbery and causes the loss of life in the process.
56I acknowledge that a collateral consequence of the sentence will be Mr. Stephens’ limited ability to have contact with his young child.
57I have reviewed and considered all of the sentencing cases relied on by Crown and defence counsel. Those that involved home invasion robberies are particularly relevant. I will refer to some, but not all of them.
58In Wright the Court of Appeal for Ontario indicated at para. 23 that there is an elastic range of sentence for home invasion offences of four to five years’ imprisonment at the low end, to as high as 11 to 13 years. The Court observed that even higher sentences are possible for situations involving kidnapping, serious injuries, sexual assault, or death.
59Several of the cases relied on by Crown counsel involved deaths caused by the discharge of firearms in the course of home invasions. For example, in R. v. Bukhari, [2007] O.J. No. 5807 (Ont. C.J.) the offender enlisted another man to bring a handgun to a planned home invasion robbery of a drug dealer. When the offender tried to restrain the victim, the victim struggled and broke free. The perpetrator who had the handgun then shot and killed the victim. On his plea of guilty to manslaughter, the offender, who was not the shooter, was sentenced to 10 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody. The offender had a relatively short criminal record. The sentencing judge observed at para. 14 that, “A handgun is different than a baseball bat or a knife. It is designed to kill and amounts to an ultimate weapon.”
60In R. v. Ricketts, 2025 ONSC 3824, in the course of a planned home invasion with a gun, the offender reflexively fired a single shot at the victim, killing him. The offender was sentenced on his plea of guilty to manslaughter to 11 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody. The offender was in his 20s and had a short criminal record.
61In other cases where there was no firearm but excessive violence was used, lengthy penitentiary sentences have been imposed. For example, in R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 3850, three men planned the home invasion robbery of a drug dealer. When the target responded to their knock on his door, one of the offenders threw gasoline on him, then hit him on the head with a metal bar. The offenders entered the apartment, following which the target was beaten over the head and stabbed multiple times. He suffered a skull fracture but survived. His brother was stabbed numerous times, resulting in his death. The three offenders were convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial. Two were each sentenced to 11 years in jail, and the third who had a record for a firearms offence, to 13 years in jail, all less pre-sentence custody. All were in their early 20s when the offence was committed.
62In R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654, three men entered the home of a drug dealer, planning to rob him of drugs and money. In the course of the home invasion, one of them struck an occupant of the home on the head multiple times with a baseball bat. Another did so with the butt end of a pellet gun. The victim died. A second man who was the target of the home invasion also was beaten, but survived. After a trial, the offender who used the baseball bat was found guilty of manslaughter. Even though he was a young first offender he was sentenced to 11 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody.
63In R. v. Allen, 2009 ONCA 261, the offender and a co-accused went to the victim’s house to assault and rob him. The victim was struck over the head several times, and died from injuries inflicted by a blunt object. The offender was convicted of manslaughter after a trial. and sentenced to eight years in jail. That sentence was upheld on appeal. The reported decision provides no detail as to the offender’s circumstances, other than that he had been deported by the time of the appeal.
64The paramount objectives of sentencing in this case are denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public. I do not ignore rehabilitation, but it plays a subservient role. Mr. Stephens’ rehabilitative prospects, while hoped for, are questionable, given his criminal history and long-standing drug addiction.
65Mr. Stephens took the life of Mr. Turgeon, in Mr. Turgeon’s own home. While the killing was not intentional, Mr. Stephens’ entry into the residence was part of a planned home invasion robbery. As I said in sentencing Mr. Lopez, courts must continue to send the message that offences involving the invasion of a residence are extremely serious. The sanctity of the home is a long-standing and cherished value in our society. Members of the community are entitled to feel and to be safe when in their own homes. Persons who put the safety of others at risk by unlawfully intruding into their private place for the purpose of committing a criminal offence should expect to receive stiff penitentiary sentences, particularly where serious harm results.
66It is also significant that this offence represents an escalation in Mr. Stephens’ criminal activity. Many, many periods of probation over the course of 15 years have failed to dissuade him from criminality. He has not been deterred by previous, relatively short periods of incarceration. On the evidence before me, the drug addiction that no doubt is the driver of his criminal activity remains untreated. It is highly aggravating that he killed Mr. Turgeon while on probation, and while bound by a weapons prohibition order put in place to protect the public. His disregard of those court orders was blatant.
67I acknowledge that Mr. Stephens’ offence involved the infliction of a single stab wound. He did not use a loaded firearm, or inflict gratuitous or excessive violence. Nonetheless, his offence is grave, and it carries substantial moral blameworthiness. The sentence proposed by the defence would fail to give effect to the significant aggravating factors in this case. It would result in a sentence that is not proportionate.
68I of course am aware of the sentence I imposed on Mr. Lopez, and the need for parity in sentencing. It was Mr. Stephens who caused Mr. Turgeon’s death, and he must receive a longer sentence for the manslaughter than did Mr. Lopez for robbery.
69Were it not for two important considerations, a sentence for Mr. Stephens that approaches the low end of the range submitted by Crown counsel would not be unfit. However, this will be a first penitentiary sentence for Mr. Stephens. Some measure of restraint is appropriate for him, as it was for Mr. Lopez. Additionally, Mr. Stephens’ time in pre-sentence custody has been remarkably harsh, as was the case for Mr. Lopez. Like Mr. Lopez, Mr. Stephens has endured conditions that can fairly be described as bordering on the inhumane. He has done so for a longer period than did Mr. Lopez.
Conclusion
70Mr. Stephens, please stand.
71I sentence you to eight years and six months in the penitentiary, less credit for the days of pre-sentence custody from January 22, 2024, which calculated at one and a half to one is 1340 days, or 45 months. That leaves a sentence still to serve of 57 months, or four years and nine months in the penitentiary.
72There is a DNA order, ss. 109(2)(a) and 109(2)(b) orders, both for life, a s. 743.21 non-communication order with the persons named by Crown counsel, and a forfeiture order.
Justice M. Fuerst
Released: July 2, 2026
NOTE: As noted in court, this written decision is to be considered the official version of the Reasons for Sentence and takes precedence over the oral Reasons read into the record in the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions.
CITATION: R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONSC 3789
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
TYLER STEPHENS
Defendant
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Justice M. Fuerst
Released: July 2, 2026