Released: Orally on February 26, 2026 and In Writing on July 13, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Houle, 2026 ONSC 4091
COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-3020 (Chatham)
DATE: 20260226
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
Tiffany Houle
Offender
R. Iaquinta and S. Renaud, for the Crown
K. Marley and J. Semaan, for the Offender
HEARD: Sentencing Hearing held November 3, 2025 and December 4, 2025
reasons for sentence
KING j.:
[1] On March 28, 2025, after a judge alone trial, Tiffany Houle was convicted of two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It is my task as the trial judge to sentence her for these offences. These are my reasons for sentence.
[2] I will be referring to Ms. Houle either by name or as the offender.
[3] The matter came before me on a re-trial directed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
[4] The re-trial took place over 11 non-consecutive days between June 10, 2024, and December 18, 2024.
[5] On March 28, 2025, I found Ms. Houle guilty of two counts of Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm contrary to s. 221 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
[6] A decision that sets out the full factual scenario, evidence, and analysis is found at 2025 ONSC 4036.
[7] I note that there was a delay in the completion of the sentencing hearing in this matter due initially to the inability of the accused to attend for a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) interview. As a result, on July 28, 2025, the deadline for the PSR was extended to October 17, 2025, and the sentencing hearing was adjourned to November 3, 2025. It was completed on December 4, 2025.
Overview of the Offence
[8] In the late afternoon of February 5, 2018, a girl named Rhyan Hull was present in Jaycee Park in Wallaceburg, Ontario. The park is situated on Larkwood Street. It was snowing that day.
[9] Rhyan (who was just a few weeks shy of 13 years old at the time) was providing after-school care to two brothers, Brodi and Tucker Marcolin (ages 6 and 3 years old respectively), who are the children of Ryan and Trina Marcolin of Wallaceburg.
[10] Rhyan would often watch the two boys after school until the workday of Ryan or Trina ended.
[11] Rhyan, Brodi and Tucker were at the back of the park near a small hill where the boys were sledding.
[12] The offender, Ms. Houle, lived across the street from Jaycee Park at 110 Larkwood.
[13] At approximately 5:00 p.m., two American Boxer dogs owned by Ms. Houle escaped from her residence, ran into the park, and approached the hill. The dogs weighed between 80 and 100 pounds each.
[14] The dogs viciously attacked Tucker. Rhyan tried valiantly to protect him from the attacking dogs. She kicked the dogs without success. She tried picking Tucker up, but the dogs were so strong and aggressive that they pulled Tucker off her arms. She suffered lacerations to her hands in the attack.
[15] The dogs were attacking Tucker’s face and legs with their teeth and paws. Rhyan observed injuries to Tucker’s face, chest, eyes, arms, and feet. There was significant blood on his clothes and in the snow on the ground.
[16] In what may be described as “divine intervention”, Jonathan and Larissa Dionne were exiting the home of her grandmother, Peggy Benoit, at 77 Larkwood. This residence was immediately adjacent to the park, and on the same side of the street.
[17] Jonathan and Larissa observed the attack in progress and rushed into the park to assist. As they approached, they realized they knew the children, who were schoolmates of one of their own children. Larissa was striking the dogs with a broomstick, but this did not impede or stop the attack. Jonathan attempted to pick up Tucker. Jonathan described what happened as follows:
Next I pick Tucker up, like I grabbed him, picked him up. I tried to get him up as high as I could. He was kinda laying on me, on my face up in arms and I’m trying to lift him up over my head to get him away from the dogs. They just kept going at him. One dog was, like I said, biting on his feet, jumping up, the other one was kind of biting at – biting his head. They eventually just became too much and they pulled me down to my knees and I couldn’t, couldn’t hold him up anymore.
[18] Eventually Jonathan managed to get Tucker into the arms of Larissa who ran through the snow carrying Tucker having lost her boots while running towards her grandmother’s house.
[19] Police and emergency services were called. Tucker was taken to the Sydenham Campus (in Wallaceburg) of Chatham General Hospital.
[20] The attending Emergency Room physician determined that Tucker’s injuries were so severe and life threatening that he required additional physician assistance. Chatham Police sent a cruiser to the main Chatham General Hospital campus (approximately 30 minutes away) and drove two additional physicians to assist in treating Tucker.
[21] After his initial treatment, and due to hospital space shortage and weather-related transportation issues in Southern Ontario, Tucker was transferred to the Detroit Medical Center – Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit, Michigan, by ambulance.
[22] There, Tucker underwent surgeries and procedures to address the serious, life-threatening injuries that he had suffered. Tucker was at Detroit Children’s Hospital for a week and then spent one more night at Windsor Regional Hospital before returning home.
[23] I will not thoroughly list all of the issues Tucker faced as the family does not need to be re-traumatized again. However, I will state that at trial, there were 84 pages of medical records from Chatham General Hospital and 41 pages from Detroit Children’s Hospital. There was concern Tucker would lose an eye. It required surgery to his tear duct. He had to be intubated to maintain his airway. There were 14 lacerations, bite wounds, and sources of bleeding. The surgery to repair these wounds took three hours. He required a blood transfusion.
[24] There was evidence at trial that Tucker still has some ongoing health issues because of this attack.
Impact on the Victims
[25] There were four victim impact statements. Two of them were profoundly heartbreaking. These offences have had a significant and continuous impact on the victims and their families.
[26] I will commence with the statement of Trina Marcolin, Tucker’s mother, which she courageously read in person. Through her statement, we had a glimpse of young Tucker. She provided insight into the horror of that February night and the extent of the injuries Tucker suffered.
[27] It started when she received a call at work that Tucker had been bit by a dog. She had to drive 30 minutes to get to Sydenham Campus. She watched her son hooked up to tubes and she consented to a blood transfusion and to his being intubated, wondering if it would be the last time she had a family of four.
[28] She spoke not only about the horror of his injuries but the uncertainty about whether Tucker would even survive. Also, she described the fact that she had to follow the ambulance from Wallaceburg to Detroit in a separate vehicle while her son was in severe medical jeopardy, afraid he might die without her being present. She described also feeling horrible for Rhyan who she described as “brave” in her efforts to save both of her boys.
[29] The impact within Tucker’s family is, in the words of Trina, global in scale. She observed how he had to be put in a four-point restraint for his own safety. She was relieved to learn that he was not going to lose an eye and that there were no broken bones or torn ligaments. The family continues to suffer from the effects of this horrible incident to this day.
[30] Ms. Marcolin said that her grief has been exacerbated by the offender’s failure to “take ownership” for the chaos her lack of responsibility has caused.
[31] The court also received a statement from Rhyan Hull.
[32] She spoke about the fact that she missed time from school as a result of the incident. She went on anxiety medication in order to return to school. She described becoming alienated from her own dog, and how it has taken considerable time for her to even be near strange dogs.
[33] She could not babysit for six months after the attack. She still attends counselling. She stated that she wants to be a police officer, but this incident weighs on her so much she is not certain she could do that work.
[34] She considers this incident “stole” the last two years of her elementary school. She added, “I know I did as much as I could to help the boys but I don’t feel like I did enough.” She described being unable to overcome that feeling.
[35] I must digress at this point to state that based on the evidence I heard in this matter, Rhyan Hull, at the young age of almost 13, more than established that she possesses all of the intelligence, attitude, skills, and sense of duty to become an excellent and highly successful police officer. She is to be commended.
[36] The court received a statement from Cassie Kipp. On September 27, 2017, when she was 14 years old, she was walking by Ms. Houle’s residence with her dog, Zoey, when Zoey was attacked by Ms. Houle’s dogs. She stated that she is still impacted by the incident, particularly when it relates to dogs. She has significant anxiety being around larger dogs today.
[37] Cassie described how it took months after the incident before she would leave her property. She finds it difficult to go by 110 Larkwood even though she knows the dogs are no longer there.
[38] The fourth statement was from Lisa Persyn. She was in the same Jaycee Park in September of 2017 with her husband Nick and their two-year-old daughter when Ms. Houle’s dogs ran freely into the park and attacked her dog, Jordan. Nick had to fall to the ground over Jordan to shelter the dog from the attack. She spoke about the impact of the incident on their family, especially as Jordan passed not long after the attack.
Circumstances of the Offender
[39] Ms. Houle was born in 1982 and is currently 43 years of age. At the time of the offences, she was 35 years of age. Ms. Houle is a single mother with two adult children and a grandmother.
[40] Ms. Houle described an uneven upbringing. There were issues with both her mother and stepfather. She described their relationship as “unhealthy”. She lived in a blended household with five other siblings with whom she was not close then, or now. She recounts sexual abuse by a family member.
[41] Ms. Houle had both of her children before the age of 20.
[42] She initially left school at age 16 when she became pregnant for the first time.
[43] To her credit, she eventually obtained credits to graduate high school. In 2007, she completed a training program to be a Medical Office Administrator. She also attended and completed a Human Resources Management program and attended a Nursing program for one year.
[44] She has worked in a paint factory, and she was engaged in an animal grooming business for a four-year period. She believes she lost her employment at the paint factory because of these charges.
[45] She has had a number of personal relationships. The longest of these lasted 12 years. It was that individual with whom she became involved with dog ownership. When that relationship ended, the two dogs remained with her.
[46] Ms. Houle is currently single and resides with her daughter and grandchildren.
[47] She has had issues with drug use over the years. Some of these resulted in issues with the CAS and her children. She has had issues with crystal methamphetamine over the past five years. She attended a transition home in Leamington, Ontario in early 2025.
[48] She left that facility in June of 2025 because she had been sober since April of 2025 and she had an opportunity to work with and assist her grandmother in the Chatham area. She is currently working for her grandmother performing household support tasks.
The Apology
[49] At the completion of the sentencing hearing, Ms. Houle provided an oral apology to the families of the victims in court. She expressed regret for what happened and indicated she could not do so earlier because of non-communication orders made by the court.
[50] As for her character, behaviour, and attitude, Ms. Houle accepted some responsibility for not properly securing her front door. She also indicated however, that she was “unaware her pets were aggressive as they have never shown aggression towards her or her family.” She also made this statement, which I found confusing:
… some of the offences occurred because “both parties”, including the victim, failed to notice the warning signs leading up to the offences.
Criminal Record
[51] Prior to the date of these offences, Ms. Houle’s criminal record comprised of a single theft under $5000 conviction. There are now three additional theft under $5000 convictions and three failure to comply with court orders from 2025. She attributes the recent criminal activity to a very unstable romantic relationship. She also attributes these offences to an unstable childhood that included being exposed to domestic violence and suffering from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a child.
Letters of Support
[52] There were three letters of support and information filed from members of Ms. Houle’s family.
[53] I note that there was information in these statements that contradicted or appeared to contradict findings made at trial. I have given the portions of those statements no weight.
[54] Her parents, Brian and Tracey Houle, stated they did not want to excuse what happened but asked the court to show their daughter compassion. They describe Ms. Houle as a caring person and devoted mother. They describe that she is not a “criminal” and has suffered deeply since the incident. They respectfully ask the court not to sentence their daughter to “any more suffering than she has ready endured.”
[55] They do not specify exactly what an appropriate sentence would be but indicate that she “deserves a chance to keep moving forward in life with love and compassion.”
[56] I have interpreted their comments as a request that Ms. Houle be permitted to serve her sentence in the community.
[57] I note a second letter of support provided by Ms. Houle’s daughter, Emma. In her letter, she acknowledged briefly the trauma that the incident caused Tucker and the entire Marcolin family. She commented on the effect the incident had on their family, including the harassment she received from members of the community.
[58] She also provided statistical information on the frequency of dog bites in Canada and the number of fatalities that occur as a result.
[59] She requested the court appreciate that Ms. Houle’s family suffered as well as a result of this incident and requested that the court not take their mother away from them as a result of this incident.
[60] I have also interpreted this comment as a request that Ms. Houle be permitted to serve her sentence in the community so she can continue to care for her children and grandchildren.
[61] There was also a letter from Ethan Houle, Ms. Houle’s son. He was present in the house at 110 Larkwood just before and during the time of the incident. He was upstairs with friends in his bedroom.
[62] He acknowledges in his letter that one of his friends had left the residence and had not properly latched the front door. He accepted some responsibility for not showing his friend out and latching the door.
[63] He apologizes to the Marcolin family for not ensuring that the door was latched properly. He focuses on how horrible this incident must have been on the Marcolin family and how difficult it has been on his family.
[64] I do not place significant weight on the letters of support provided by the members of Ms. Houle’s family. While it is excellent that she has the support of her family, the letters are not from third parties with whom Ms. Houle has interacted positively. They are, in effect, requests for leniency. While I have taken those submissions into account, they are not the type of letters of support from the community that the court often receives in sentencing situations.
[65] To repeat, wherever, there are statements made within these letters of support that are inconsistent with the findings of fact I made at trial, I have disregarded same from my sentencing considerations.
General Legal Principles
[66] Section 718 of the Code outlines the fundamental objectives of sentencing. These include denunciation, deterrence, assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders, separation, the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[67] The fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in s. 718.1 of the Code, namely: “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
[68] Additional principles contained in s. 718.2 include:
In subsection (b): that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses committed in similar circumstances.
In subsection (d): that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
In subsection (e): that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders.
[69] I must also consider the provisions of s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) as the victims in this matter, Tucker and Rhyan, were both children. That section provides as follows:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years.
[70] I also note s. 718.2(iii.1) which states as follows:
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation.
[71] In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, the Supreme Court of Canada provided the principles and objectives of conditional sentences. Overarchingly, a conditional sentence is a meaningful alternative to incarceration for less serious and non-dangerous offenders: at para. 21. The conditional sentence was designed to reduce the use of prison as a criminal sanction and expand the use of restorative justice principles into sentencing. The offender, while serving their sentence in the community, would still be under strict surveillance and subjected to conditions as required.
[72] At para. 22, Proulx states that a conditional sentence will be more effective than incarceration in the sentencing objective of rehabilitation, though it is still a “punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.” That is not to say that a conditional sentence is a lenient punishment, as the time spent serving a sentence in the community is controlled by strict conditions where house arrest or curfew is the norm, not the exception. It may be as onerous, or even more onerous, than a jail term, depending on the conditions, the circumstances of the offender, and the need for the offender to make reparations while taking responsibility for their conduct: Proulx, at para. 41. Additionally, a conditional sentence is not subject to a reduction through parole. All of that said, a “conditional sentence, even with stringent conditions, will usually be a more lenient sentence than a jail term of equivalent duration.”: Proulx, at para. 44.
[73] The imposition of a conditional sentence under s.742.1 of the Code requires the consideration of four criteria:
(1) the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment;
(2) the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years;
(3) the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and
(4) a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.
[74] As the court stated in Proulx, the first three criteria are pre-requisites to any conditional sentence, determining whether it is even a possible sanction available to the sentencing judge. The last criteria asks whether, in the act of coming to a just and fit sentence, I find a conditional sentence to be appropriate and whether it would sufficiently achieve the objectives and purposes of the sentencing regime. This decision turns on the consideration of the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing found in s.718 of the Code as set out above.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[75] Given the principle of parity, it is important to consider sentences imposed in similar cases. I will start by noting that there were surprisingly few sentencing decisions in situations of criminal negligence causing bodily harm relating to dog attacks.
Defence
[76] The defence position is that a custodial sentence is not required. Counsel suggests that a sentence for a period of less than two years could be served in the community with the imposition of a number of conditions, including the wearing of a GPS ankle bracelet.
[77] The defence relies principally on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Proulx, as referenced above.
[78] Mr. Marley relies on a number of factors to justify a conditional sentence in this case:
a) The offences occurred eight years ago. Ms. Houle has effectively been in the community ever since – living, working and being with her family.
b) A conditional sentence would not adversely affect the principles of sentencing and the safety of the community.
c) The offence occurred suddenly on one specific day – a brief act of negligence.
d) Based on the jurisprudence, he submits a conditional sentence is not akin to a period of probation because it places a restriction on a person’s liberty – ie. house arrest.
Position of the Crown
[79] The Crown position is that the appropriate sentence is a period of incarceration for four years. Given the high degree of moral blame worthiness present here, the Crown submits that a penitentiary sentence can be appropriate, even for a first-time offender.
[80] The Crown relies principally on the case of R. v. Jean-Gilles, 2018 QCCQ 1722, and to a lesser extent a second case, R. v. Kirby, 2023 NBKB 021.
[81] The facts in Jean-Gilles are similar to the case at bar. In Jean-Gilles, a seven-year-old child was attacked in a park across the street from the residence of the accused. The child was with her mother, while the mother of the offender was present with two Pitbull dogs. One of the dogs brutally bit the child’s face, neck, and hands. The child suffered multiple lacerations, fractures of the facial and skull base, and torn nerves and muscles.
[82] The offender did have a significant criminal record for which he had served time in custody.
[83] The Crown sought a three-year sentence. The judge had concerns regarding the prosecution’s recommendation as it seemed insufficient to meet the principles and objectives of sentencing and relied on R. v. Ipeelee, 2018 ONCA 13, to reject that suggested sentence and imposed a four-year sentence.
[84] I note parenthetically that in that situation the mother was charged separately. She was convicted but received a suspended sentence. She plead guilty and there were many mitigating circumstances in her situation. Justice Belisle found there was no mitigating circumstances with respect to Mr. Jean-Gilles. It is the sentencing analysis regarding the owner of the dogs, Mr. Jean-Gilles, that the Crown relies on.
[85] There are some aspects of that case that are factually similar to this case:
(a) The attack was brutal.
(b) The injuries were life-threatening.
(c) The injuries were suffered by persons under the age of 18.
(d) There was a high degree of moral culpability.
[86] There are also some significant differences which, in my opinion, resulted in a heightened sentence for Mr. Jean-Gilles:
(a) There was evidence that the offender’s dogs were repeatedly roaming freely in the park and neighbourhood.
(b) It took nine hours to get the seven-year-old victim to the appropriate hospital because the offender refused to disclose information regarding the rabies vaccination status of the dogs.
(c) The offender had a significant criminal record. It was such that the sentencing judge concluded as follows:
He is refractory to any form of authority. The many prison sentences did not have an impact on him. He did not learn any positive lessons from the sanctions imposed. The lack of awareness of the nature and gravity of the offence committed… suggests a risk of re-offending.
(d) There was an absolute lack of any remorse.
[87] All of this resulted “in favour of a severe sentence of deprivation of liberty in order to isolate the accused from society.” This sentence was driven by denunciation and deterrence to express disapproval.
[88] The Crown states the Jean-Gilles case is close to being on “all fours” factually with this matter. Crown counsel succinctly described that:
The victims are of like age, it happened in a park, there was one previous finding of regulatory responsibility with respect to the dogs’ previous behaviour. In other words, both accused, Jean-Gilles and Ms. Houle were aware their dogs were prone to attack.
[89] While the Crown positioned Jean-Gilles as the best comparable, there is also the decision of R. v. Kirby, 2023 NBKB 2, 2023 NBKB 02, to be considered.
[90] In Kirby, the accused was found guilty of four counts of Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm, contrary to s. 221 of the Code.
[91] The case involved four dog attacks against four different complainants over a short period of time. For a variety of reasons, there were no victim impact statements provided to the court.
[92] The offender, Mr. Kirby, was 60 years old and never married. He had no criminal record. He took responsibility for the actions giving rise to the offences.
[93] While acknowledging the potential application of imposing a conditional sentence pursuant to s. 742.1(a) of the Code, the Crown in Kirby sought a period of incarceration for a period of 18 to 24 months.
[94] In this matter, the Crown relies on R. v. Jean-Gilles in seeking a four-year sentence.
[95] The injuries in both Jean-Gilles and this matter were more serious than in Kirby. However, the sentencing judge in Kirby noted that the four offences were serious. He gave consideration to the appropriateness of imposing a conditional sentence.
[96] Doyle J. stated in imposing a sentence that had a 12-month jail term for the most serious offences, at paras. 104-105:
I cannot lose sight however of the terrible impact that [the offender’s] criminal negligence had on the four victims… to allow Mr. Kirby to serve his sentence in the community would trivialize the crimes he committed against the four victims.
[97] While the attacks in Kirby did not result in injuries as serious as those that befell Tucker, I have concluded that the Kirby case is more relevant to the court with respect to the range of sentence.
[98] The Crown provided the court with a number of other authorities. All but one of those cases relate to sentencing with respect to situations of criminal negligence causing death. While I appreciate there are very few cases involving charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, there are significant differences in determining the appropriate sentence in cases where death has occurred. I have reviewed those decisions, but they do not significantly factor into my ultimate determination of the appropriate sentence in this instance.
ANALYSIS
[99] I am required to consider any mitigating and aggravating circumstances in this matter.
Aggravating Circumstances
[100] There are several aggravating circumstances present.
[101] There is a high level of moral blameworthiness with respect to this offence. The evidence established that Ms. Houle knew her dogs were prone to violence. She was aware there had been two previous incidents in the past 12 months, as evidenced by Ms. Kipp and Ms. Persyn.
[102] She had had issues with the dogs escaping into her next door neighbour’s yard under the fence. She was able to repair the fence and prevent further incidents in that respect. However, she did not take steps to ensure that the front storm door of her residence was in proper working order. The return mechanism was broken and did not work, and the latch on the door was so worn, it did not fasten. She took no steps to repair this door, despite this malfunctioning allowing her dogs to escape the residence and run across the street into Jaycee Park and attack Tucker Marcolin.
[103] In this, she demonstrated disregard for the safety and well-being of others. This can be characterized as having a high degree of moral blameworthiness.
[104] Her negligence was so dangerous that it showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others and showed a “marked and substantial” departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.
[105] I also consider it to be an aggravating factor that the criminal negligence of Ms. Houle caused injuries to children. In the case of Tucker, those injuries were life-threatening.
Mitigating Factors
[106] The mitigating factors are:
i. At the time of the offence, Ms. Houle had a limited and dated criminal record from 2003, from when she was approximately 21 years of age.
ii. The court received letters of support from Ms. Houle’s family.
[107] Ms. Houle attempted to apologize for the pain and suffering that occurred at the completion of the sentencing hearing. However, the apology did not include an acceptance of full responsibility for her actions. She expressed remorse and regret for the harm caused but did not appear to comprehend that she was the cause of that harm.
[108] Additionally, I am utterly perplexed by the statement she made on her PSR interview that “some of the offences occurred because ‘both parties’ including the victim, failed to notice the warning signs heading up to the offences.” Who is the victim she is referring to? If it is Tucker, this completely negates any attempt at an apology.
[109] If Ms. Houle is stating that a three-year-old sledding in a park on a snowy day after school with his brother and a 12-year-old caregiver failed to notice the warning signs leading up to the attack, I consider this to negate any suggestion of an apology or remorse.
[110] Alternatively, is she stating that Rhyan Hull was somehow partly responsible for not noticing the warning signs as these two vicious dogs ran across the park and attacked Tucker? If so, I strongly disagree.
[111] Is she referring to either the Kipp or Persyn attacks? If so, what bearing does that have on the incident of February 5, 2018? There is no correlation between the victims.
[112] In all, notwithstanding my concerns regarding the comment regarding warning signs, I have concluded that there are some mitigating factors. There is a general sense of apology. I note the nearly clear record of Ms. Houle at the time of the offences. I have a general sense that while her life has not been without significant family and personal challenges, it has been mostly pro-social.
[113] There was discussion at the sentencing hearing about the fact that Ms. Houle had lost her employment at the paint factory because of the notoriety of these charges. There was not, however, any direct evidence provided that would establish her employer had terminated her specifically because of this matter.
[114] I have concluded that the loss of her employment is neither an aggravating nor mitigating factor.
Discussion
[115] The Crown submits that it is appropriate to impose a penitentiary sentence (that is, a sentence of two years or more) where a first-time offender breaches a duty of care in a situation such as this of high moral blameworthiness in order to adhere to the principles of deterrence and denunciation. The Crown submits that a four-year sentence is the lowest sentence that is reasonable in the circumstances.
[116] I disagree.
[117] Firstly, I find that the Jean-Gilles decision, while it is factually similar on the circumstances of the actual dog attack, it is distinguishable on the issue of sentencing for a number of reasons. These reasons include the dogs history of roaming in the neighbourhood, the accused’s lack of co-operation and transparency regarding the vaccination status in an almost malicious way, and his significant criminal record. The fact that the judge imposed a higher sentence than asked of by the Crown was clearly a message to the accused.
[118] We do not have the same basket of sentencing considerations before the court with respect to Ms. Houle. Her criminal record is nowhere near as serious as that of Mr. Jean-Gilles. She does not have the history of being “refactory” or, in other words, resistant to any form of authority.
[119] Sentencing is often described as more of an art than a science. It is not a mathematical or formulaic process. In this case, an appropriate penalty involves a delicate balancing of multiple considerations. I must consider the harm caused by the offender. I must consider the degree of moral blameworthiness of the offender. I must consider the offender’s circumstances.
[120] In my opinion, a sentence of four years would be excessive with regards to the need for denunciation and deterrence and totally disregard the notion of rehabilitation for Ms. Houle.
[121] Mr. Marley spent considerable time in his submissions asking the court to account for the lengthy period of time since these offences occurred as a form of mitigation of penalty or alternatively as a reason to consider a conditional sentence.
[122] He is also asking the court to give little or no weight to the various criminal convictions from 2025 that occurred while this case has worked its way through this court, to the Ontario Court of Appeal and back.
[123] Suffice it to say, I give no weight to the 2025 offences in consideration of a fit and just sentence in this case.
[124] To that extent, Ms. Houle has not been penalized for the length of time this case has been in the courts.
[125] I also have to consider the appropriate sentence for these offences in the time frame they occurred.
[126] As I previously explained, the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Here the offence was serious, and the responsibility rests entirely with the offender. Her blameworthy conduct was in my view high, but does not warrant a penitentiary sentence of four years.
[127] On a balance of all these factors, I find that a fit and just global sentence is two years less a day.
Is a Conditional Sentence Appropriate?
[128] In 2022, conditional sentence orders became available for a number of offences, including criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. It is available as a sentencing option in this case: see R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, [2022] 3 SCR 147.
[129] I am satisfied that the first three conditions prescribed in s. 742.1 are satisfied. This offence is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. I am imposing a term of imprisonment of less than two years. And thirdly, the safety of the community would not be endangered by Ms. Houle serving the sentence in the community.
[130] Accordingly, I must assess the final consideration – whether - a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
[131] I recognize conditional sentences served in the community are a valuable and important consideration in many instances. This is not, in my respectful opinion, one of those situations.
[132] However, to be direct, I find that ordering Ms. Houle to serve her sentence in the community would not give adequate consideration to the key principles of denunciation and deterrence.
[133] In my opinion, such a sentence would not send an appropriate message to the community that this type of moral blameworthy conduct will only attract a sentence in the community and the limitations on some freedoms that would follow.
[134] We cannot lose sight of the high degree of moral blameworthiness that resulted in these horrific offences occurring, particularly as relates to Tucker.
[135] I note a number of points:
Contrary to what Mr. Marley submits, this was not a single offence occurring suddenly on just one day. While the attack may have occurred suddenly, this was not an instantaneous criminal event. There was a history of conduct stretching back at least months prior to this incident. Ms. Houle had to repair her fence to prevent her dogs from escaping her yard. There was the Kipp incident. There was the Persyn incident. Ms. Houle knew her dogs were prone to attack. The suggestion that she knew the dogs were only prone to attack animals is both specious and respectfully chilling.
There is no logical correlation between Ms. Houle knowing of a history of having her dogs commit attacks on two other animals in the presence of humans and being able to conclude with absolute certainty that she reasonably had some type of guarantee from an attack on a human, particularly a small human like Tucker. I cannot imagine a situation where that calculus could ever apply.
The elements of this offence took months to gestate. The attack could have been avoided had Ms. Houle taken the necessary and easy steps to ensure that her front storm door was repaired and capable of preventing two large dogs with a history of attacking from escaping her residence at any time – day or night, with or without teenagers coming in and out of the house.
[136] A conditional sentence in these circumstances would not, in my respectful opinion, send the necessary message to denounce and deter this type of criminally negligent conduct.
[137] The community needs to know that if persons want to own dogs capable of attacking persons, and in particular, children, this viciously and violently, they need to act with due care. They must ensure their animals cannot cause the type of life altering mayhem that occurred to three-year-old Tucker Marcolin and his family and as well, to Rhyan Hull.
[138] I am guided by the considerations of Justice Doyle in the Kirby matter, where it is stated, at para. 106:
In my opinion, a community sentence in the circumstances of this case would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
[139] All of those considerations apply as I determine whether a conditional sentence should be a component of a fit and just sentence.
[140] Given the seriousness of the injuries to Tucker, and the high degree of moral blameworthiness of the offender, as in Kirby, I find that a conditional sentence would not only fail to provide for specific deterrence but would, in effect, trivialize the offences.
[141] That is, a conditional sentence served in the community would not remotely address the important considerations of denunciation and deterrence as I have described.
Disposition
[142] Ms. Houle would you please stand.
[143] I sentence you to a period of incarceration of two years less a day. The sentence is broken down as follows:
a) For the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Tucker Marcolin, a sentence of two years less a day is imposed.
b) For the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Rhyan Hull, a sentence of eight months is imposed, to be served concurrently with the sentence set out in sub paragraph a.
[144] That sentence may be reduced by giving Ms. Houle credit for any time spent in custody before today at 1.5:1. (Summers credit), if applicable.
[145] I further order that following your release from imprisonment, you shall be subject to a one-year probation order subject to the following conditions:
That you report in person to a probation officer, within two working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision.
That you cooperate with your probation officer. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to your probation officer on request.
That you live at a place approved of by the probation officer and do not change that address without obtaining consent of the probation officer in advance. Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer, including but not limited to:
Mental Health & Psychiatric/Psychological Issues
Substance Use
Healthy Relationships
[146] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, for a period of ten years following your release from imprisonment, be prohibited from possessing:
a) Any firearm and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for ten years; and
b) Any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for ten years.
[147] Pursuant to s. 743.21, you are to have no contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, with:
Tucker Marcolin
Brodi Marcolin
Trina Marcolin
Ryan Marcolin
Rhyan Hull
Cassie Kipp
Nick Persyn
Lisa Persyn
[148] You are not to be within 100 metres of any place you know Tucker Marcolin and Rhyan Hull to live, work or go to school or be at.
[149] You are not to own, be in the care, or control of any dogs.
[150] In light of the evidence before this court and the submissions of the Crown and the defence, I am not satisfied that there is a basis for exercising my discretion and ordering that you be subject to an order authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis pursuant to subsections 487.051(3)(b) of the Code. Accordingly, I am not issuing a DNA order.
[151] I am also not prepared to make a common law order for a Peace Bond at this time. There has been no additional conduct by Ms. Houle that causes me to give consideration to making such an order.
[152] And that is my ruling.
____________________
George W. King
Justice
Released: Orally on February 26, 2026 and In Writing on July 13, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Houle, 2026 ONSC 4091
COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-3020 (Chatham)
DATE: 20260226
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
Tiffany Houle
Offender
REASONS FOR sentence
King J.
Released: Orally on February 26, 2026 and In Writing on July 13, 2026