His Majesty the King v. Jedidiah Creighton-Chevalier, 2026 ONSC 400

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Creighton-Chevalier, 2026 ONSC 400
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-50000580-0000
DATE: 2026-01-22

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JEDIDIAH CREIGHTON-CHEVALIER

COUNSEL:

• D. Hogan and D. Theriault-Harris, for the Crown
• T. Rodocker, for Mr. Creighton-Chevalier

BEFORE: S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

RULING ON SENTENCING

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FACTS

1Jedidiah Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was convicted of Manslaughter and now stands to be sentenced.

2In the early hours of the morning of 6 March 2023 a group of men, which included Hussein Ibrohim, Hussein Elmi, Christopher Williamson, and Jedidiah Creighton-Chevalier, made their way from the intersection of Yonge Street and Dundas Street in Toronto to Queen Street where they boarded a bus travelling eastbound.

3When the bus stopped at the intersection of Queen Street East and Jarvis Street, Jeffrey Munro boarded the bus and engaged in an interaction with some of the men. For reasons that have never been explained, Mr. Munro left the bus and was immediately followed by Mr. Ibrohim. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier and the rest of the group also exited the bus but through the rear doors.

4The group chased Mr. Munro across Queen Street with Mr. Ibrohim and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier leading the pack. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier punched Mr. Munro sending him to the ground. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier retreated to the north eastern corner of the intersection of Queen Street and Sherbourne Street as the rest of the group joined the attack on Mr. Munro.

5Somehow, Mr. Munro managed to get to his feet and backed away from his assailants. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier stepped back into the fray once again punching Mr. Munro again sending him to the ground, but this time with such force that Mr. Munro’s legs flew up into the air. The rest of the group once again began attacking the defenceless Mr. Munro.

6Mr. Ibrohim, who was in possession of a knife, stabbed Mr. Munro a number of times before he and the rest of the group left the scene walking down Queen Street.

7Mr. Munro, clearly injured, stood up and stumbled across the street before falling on a snowbank. Paramedics arrived and it was later discovered that Mr. Munro had died as a result of multiple stab wounds to his chest.

8The Crown alleged that Mr. Ibrohim was the person who stabbed Mr. Munro, that Mr. Elmi and Williamson participated in the attack, and that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier acted as aider by preventing Mr. Munro escaping from his attackers.

9Mr. Ibrohim and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier were tried together for the offences of Second Degree Murder.

10The jury convicted Mr. Ibrohim of Second Degree Murder and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier of Manslaughter.

Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s Personal Circumstances

11Mr. Creighton-Chevalier is now 24 years old.

12He had a troubled upbringing as a child. His family struggled with substance abuse issues. One of his older brothers died from a drug overdose in 2020, and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s other brother is currently under correctional supervision. His parents frequently moved homes from location to location because of financial and substance abuse issues.

13At age five, Mr. Creighton-Chevalier entered the world of child protection services and began staying with a foster family. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier told the author of his pre-sentence report that when he returned to his parents’ care, he experienced "chaos and instability". Throughout his childhood, Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was exposed to his parents’ constant use of drugs.

14Although Mr. Creighton-Chevalier had a poor relationship with his parents, there was a significant bond with his grandmother and aunt who continue to remain supportive.

15Mr. Creighton-Chevalier began drinking heavily after the death of his older brother. After his other brother was charged with criminal offences, Mr. Creighton-Chevalier, now alone, suffered further negative emotional consequences.

16The pre-sentence report also discloses that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier began using prescription medication and alcohol at a young age. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier maintains that he did not use any "hard drugs" but concedes that he is addicted to prescription medication. The author of the pre-sentence report indicates that he has not sought counselling to assist with long-term sobriety.

17The pre-sentence report discloses that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was impaired and seeking more drugs on the night of the incident. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier told the author of the report that he only wanted to "leave and get to the next place to get drugs". He maintained, however, that he has not taken any drugs since his arrest and only consumes alcohol on a social basis.

18Mr. Creighton-Chevalier does not have a substantial educational background. He attended different schools because his parents moved constantly. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was diagnosed with dyslexia in grade 4 which contributed to his academic struggles. When he was 18 he began an apprenticeship in concrete reinforcement and steel structure. He completed that program in 2021 and has worked for various agencies in Alberta and Ontario. He indicates, in the pre-sentence report, that he wishes to pursue a career as an electrician or continue in concrete finishing.

19What is apparent from the pre-sentence report is that those close to Mr. Creighton-Chevalier have expressed shock at his role in the offence. They describe his conduct as being out of character.

20Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was released on bail and ordered to remain in his residence prior to trial. It appears that there were no contraventions of any bail conditions or new charges arising out of this time period.

21He is currently in a relationship with Ms. Cassidy Weir who provided a letter of support in this sentencing hearing. She acknowledges Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s past mistakes but also indicates that he has built a strong relationship with her children. Ms. Weir also describes how Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s traumatic past still affects him but he is doing his best to acknowledge his addictions and communicates his problems to her in an open manner.

The Circumstances of the Offence

22In a jury trial, a sentencing judge "is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury's verdict": R. v. Brown, 1991 73 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 518, at p. 523. The judge must accept all facts that are essential to the jury’s guilty verdict. If there is ambiguity in the verdict a judge is entitled to come to their own independent determination of the relevant facts.

23In R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, at para. 18, the court wrote:

[W]hen the factual implications of the jury's verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logical process of the jury, but should come to his or her own independent determination of the relevant facts. In so doing, the sentencing judge "may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven". To rely upon an aggravating fact or previous conviction, the sentencing judge must be convinced of the existence of that fact or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt; to rely upon any other relevant fact, the sentencing judge must be persuaded on a balance of probabilities. It follows from the purpose of the exercise that the sentencing judge should find only those facts necessary to permit the proper sentence to be imposed in the case at hand. The judge should first ask what the issues on sentencing are, and then find such facts as are necessary to deal with those issues. [Citations omitted.]

24See also: R. v. L.M., 2014 ONCA 640, at para. 48.

25Here, the parties dispute one significant fact: whether Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew Mr. Ibrohim had a knife in his possession and would use it when attacking Mr. Munro.

26Here, the jury was directed that they could only convict Mr. Creighton-Chevalier if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he knew that one or more of the parties involved in the offence knew or intended to commit Manslaughter - i.e. commit an unlawful act that would put another person at risk of bodily harm - and (2) that he did something to assist them in carrying out the offence.

27The Crown adduced evidence of an image taken a short time before the offence showing Mr. Ibrohim running whilst carrying an object that looked very much like a knife with Mr. Creighton-Chevalier directly behind him. Additional video footage recorded some 40 minutes before the attack on Mr. Munro captured Mr. Ibrohim flicking open a knife in full view of the rest of the group including Mr. Creighton-Chevalier.

28I find that these two items of evidence demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ibrohim was carrying a knife and that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew that fact.

29Moreover, the video recording the attack shows Mr. Ibrohim chasing Mr. Munro with Mr. Creighton-Chevalier following directly behind him. Mr. Ibrohim can be seen swinging his arm at Mr. Munro. I find that this shows Mr. Ibrohim was directly thrusting the knife at Mr. Munro in full view of Mr. Creighton-Chevalier.

30I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew of Mr. Ibrohim’s possession of the knife and the fact that he was using it as a weapon in the attack on Mr. Munro. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s actions in punching Mr. Munro to the ground and then preventing any escape by punching him to the ground a second time were done with the full knowledge that Mr. Ibrohim was going to use the knife that he carried to stab Mr. Munro.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

31There are some aggravating features present in this case. I have already described my finding that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew that Mr. Ibrohim had a knife and was going to use it. This was also a group attack in which three other men continued the assault upon Mr. Munro.

32Against that, there are some significant mitigating factors.

33Mr. Creighton-Chevalier has no prior criminal record. He surrendered himself into custody when learning that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. I also take account that during this trial he co-operated with the Crown conceding important facts such as identity which permitted the evidentiary portion of the trial to be streamlined without the need to call identification evidence. His admissions show some responsibility for his actions that night.

34Mr. Creighton-Chevalier also provided an affidavit for consideration at this sentencing hearing. He repeated much of what had been told to the author of the pre-sentence report about his family’s substance abuse and his older brother’s involvement in the criminal justice system which left him without familial guidance. His older brother died from a drug overdose which deeply affected Mr. Creighton-Chevalier.

35Six months prior to the offence Mr. Creighton-Chevalier became homeless in Toronto and addicted to drugs and alcohol.

36The defence has also provided records from the Toronto South Detention Centre where Mr. Creighton-Chevalier spent 594 days in custody before being granted bail. During that time the TDSC experienced 139 days of lockdowns, mainly partial, but sometimes full lockdowns.

37Mr. Creighton-Chevalier has the support of his family and friends. His aunt, Crystal Creighton, describes him as kind and caring even though he experienced extremely difficult personal and family circumstances. He also has the support of his grandmother, Marilyn Leggett, his aunt’s friend Kaelyn Momirov, as well as his childhood friend, Tjay Herbert, who has known him since Grade 8. All of his network re-iterate the difficulties of his upbringing and his family history of substance abuse.

The Sentencing Range

38The range of sentencing in Manslaughter is understandably broad reflecting the reality that the offence encompasses a broad series of factual scenarios. A conviction for Manslaughter requires that an unlawful act causes an unintended death even where the result is unforeseen: R. v. Creighton, 1993 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3. at p. 8.

39The defence relies on cases where courts have imposed conditional sentences, for example in R. v. Ferguson, [1997] O.J. No. 2488 (Ont. S.C.), and R. v. Hariczuk, [1999] O.J. No. 3110 (Ont. C.J.) to demonstrate that this type of sentence is available even when an offender is found to have committed Manslaughter.

40Mr. Rodocker points to the case of R. v. Tabarra, 2009 57453 (Ont. S.C.) as a helpful precedent. There, two persons, the deceased and a friend, were out socialising and became involved in an interaction with Tabarra and two other men, who had been out drinking with friends. After some lunges and fake punches were thrown between the two groups, the deceased turned and began to walk away. Tabarra punched him on the back of the head causing the deceased to collapse on the ground and subsequently die. Medical examination showed that the punch delivered by Tabarra had caused a brain haemorrhage which resulted in death. Tabarra was given a custodial sentence of two years less a day, with five days deducted due to pre-sentence custody credit.

41The Crown on the other hand relies on cases where custodial sentences were imposed. For example, in R. v. MacFarlane, 2012 ONCA 82, 288 O.A.C. 114, the offender pleaded guilty to Manslaughter when he and a co-accused male got into an altercation with the victim after leaving a party. MacFarlane beat up the victim but his co-accused caused the victim’s death by stabbing him. Like Mr. Creighton-Chevalier, MacFarlane had no prior convictions and pled guilty, and also co-operated with investigators. Macfarlane received a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment.

42In R. v. Lee, 2021 ONSC 7672, the offender was convicted of Manslaughter after he was part of a group involved in a confrontation with another group, one of whom was stabbed to death by a co-accused. The offender assisted the stabber by chasing him and preventing the victim from escaping. The offender had no criminal record and was 19 at the time of the offence. There was evidence that he might have been under the influence of alcohol and drugs and suffered harsh conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He was given a sentence of 7 1/2 years imprisonment.

43In R. v. MacIsaac, 2021 ONSC 6704, a similar situation to this case occurred. Two groups of young men at a party became involved in a verbal argument that turned physical. MacIsaac was found to have been a party to Manslaughter by preventing one of the deceased from escaping from an attack which resulted in his being stabbed by MacIsaac’s co-accused. MacIsaac was 19 years of age and had no criminal record but received a sentence of 7 1/2 years imprisonment.

44In R. v. E.K, 2017 ONSC 5204, the offender pleaded guilty to Manslaughter. She set up a fight between her ex-boyfriend (the victim) and her co-accused. During the conflict, in which she also participated, her co-accused stabbed the victim to death whilst she was hitting him. She was a youthful offender with an unrelated criminal record. The court sentenced her to 8 years imprisonment.

45In R. v. Chapman, 2013 ONCA 15, the offender assisted a co-accused holding down the victim whilst he choked her. He then stood by whilst the co-accused beat her to death with a baseball bat. The evidence showed that the offender had refused to strike the victim with the bat when asked to do so by his co-accused. The court sentenced him to 9 years imprisonment which was upheld on appeal.

The Sentence

46What then is the appropriate sentence in this case?

47Section 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c C-46, reads:

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

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

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

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

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

48The Crown submits that in the normal circumstances the commission of this offence would warrant a sentence of six years. However, the Crown suggests that the mitigating factors in this case and the conditions experienced by Mr. Creighton-Chevalier at the Toronto South Detention Centre would justify a sentence of two years less one day, in addition to the time served.

49The parties agree that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier spent a total of 594 days in custody which would, at the enhanced rate set out in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, of 1.5:1 be calculated as 891 days. I would round that figure up to 30 months.

50Mr. Rodocker also relies upon the significant mitigating circumstances in this case. However, he suggests that a conditional sentence of six months in addition to the time served would be the appropriate sentence. Mr. Rodocker is correct in submitting that the jury’s finding that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier was not guilty of Second Degree Murder but guilty of Manslaughter shows that, at the very least, the jury had a reasonable doubt that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew that Mr. Ibrohim or any other members of the group had the requisite mens rea for Second Degree Murder and assisted the group in carrying out that intent.

51However, Mr. Rodocker’s position also relies on the premise that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier did not know Mr. Ibrohim was in possession of a knife or was going to use a knife to attack Mr. Munro. As described above, I have rejected that position.

52Although the Crown’s suggestion of two years less one day in addition to the 30 or so months served as pre-sentence custody falls at the very lowest end of the sentencing range, I am inclined to follow it.

53I have described in detail the circumstances of Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s upbringing, his struggles with addiction, and the support from his family. These clearly warrant sympathy and go some way in reducing what might otherwise be a much lengthier sentence. To a lesser extent, I am also prepared to take into account the conditions endured by Mr. Creighton-Chevalier at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

54Cumulatively, these factors support a sentence of two years less one day in addition to the time served in pre-sentence custody.

55The next question is whether that sentence should be served as a conditional sentence or in prison.

56There is no doubt that a conditional sentence may be imposed in cases of violence.

57In R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, 164 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 28, the court remarked that “a sentencing judge should determine whether [a conditional sentence] is appropriate by considering, and weighing, the ability of a conditional sentence to meet the deterrence and denunciation objectives and other relevant sentencing objectives, including restraint and rehabilitation”.

58In other cases of Manslaughter, courts have, for the most part, imposed sentences of imprisonment even where death is the result of a single blow.

59In R. v. Gayle, 2020 ONSC 5238, on a plea of guilty, the court imposed a seven year sentence when the offender struck a vulnerable victim with one punch in a bar. The victim hit his head on the ceramic floor and although he appeared to recover, he later died from bleeding in the brain. In R. v. Hanifan (2001), 2001 4000 (ON CA), 144 O.A.C. 110 (Ont. C.A.), another bar fight scenario, the offender punched another bar patron once, causing him to fall and hit his head and leading to death. The court upheld a six year sentence. In R. v. Henry, 2002 NSCA 33, 203 N.S.R. (2d) 40, the sentencing judge imposed a two years less one day conditional sentence for Manslaughter where the offender punched the victim in the face after he saw him hit a young woman at a bar. The victim fell onto the pavement and suffered a fatal head injury. The Court of Appeal overturned that sentence substituting a sentence of four years imprisonment.

60Finally, in Tabarra, relied upon by the defence to demonstrate that a less lengthy sentence would be within the range, the sentencing judge declined to impose a conditional sentence because that would not sufficiently meet the principles set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code.

The cases relied upon by the defence can be distinguished from this case. For example, Ferguson was a case involving an accused who was found to be suffering from battered wife syndrome and who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The facts in Hariczuk are also markedly different. There, the offender was a substance abuser who left a lethal mixture of methadone in his refrigerator which was mistakenly consumed by his daughter.

The Appropriate Sentence

61Regardless of the limited role that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier played in the offence, the gravity of his conduct cannot be discounted.

62This was an unexplained attack that appeared to arise out of a chance encounter between Mr. Munro and the group, including Mr. Creighton-Chevalier and Mr. Ibrohim, on a TTC bus. Whatever led to the acrimony between them, the evidence shows the frightening nature of the attack.

63Mr. Ibrohim pursued Mr. Munro through the driver’s door and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier aggressively forced his way out of the bus’s rear doors showing his willingness and eagerness to follow and attack Mr. Munro.

64Mr. Munro was chased from the TTC bus by the four assailants with Mr. Ibrohim and Mr. Creighton-Chevalier leading the charge. Mr. Creighton-Chevalier, knowing Mr. Ibrohim was in possession of a knife, was the person who took Mr. Munro to the ground with a single swing of his fist. He saw the knife being wielded by Mr. Ibrohim and retreated to permit his friends to attack Mr. Munro.

65When Mr. Munro got back to his feet, he backed away, hoping to escape. It was Mr. Creighton-Chevalier who stepped back into the fray and knocked him to the ground with such force that Mr. Munro’s legs flew backwards into the air. Whether Mr. Munro could have escaped is open to debate. However, Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s intervention ended any opportunity to do so.

66As a result of the intervention, Mr. Ibrohim, Mr. Elmi and Mr. Williamson finished their assault on Mr. Munro with Mr. Ibrohim using the knife that Mr. Creighton-Chevalier knew him to possess to inflict the fatal blow.

67I find that a conditional sentence in this case would not be appropriate: such a sentence would not adequately reflect the denunciation and deterrence principles of the Criminal Code required in this case.

68Accordingly, I agree with the Crown’s suggested position which falls at the lowest end of the sentencing range for this offence.

69Having taken into account Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s 30 month pre-sentence custody, and also the mitigating factors set out above including the conditions experienced by Mr. Creighton-Chevalier at the Toronto South Detention Centre, I find that he will serve an additional 2 years plus one day sentence of imprisonment. This modest increase in sentence (from the Crown’s position of 2 years less one day) was requested by Mr. Creighton-Chevalier’s counsel because he believed that the rehabilitative programmes in the federal penitentiary system would be more helpful to Mr. Creighton-Chevalier.

70Mr. Creighton-Chevalier will provide a sample of his DNA under s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code, as Manslaughter is a primary designated offence. He will be prohibited from any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for 10 years under s. 109 of the Criminal Code, and prohibited from possessing any firearms for life.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.