ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
CHRISTOPHER WOOD
Brianne Bovell and Jackson Foreman, for the Crown
Adele Monaco, for Christopher Wood
HEARD: June 2 and 25, 2026
M. Forestell J.
Reasons for SENTENCE
I overview
1Christopher Wood pleaded guilty on June 2, 2026, to the second-degree murder of Etop Etuen. Sentencing submissions were made on June 25, 2026.
2The mandatory sentence for second-degree murder is one of life imprisonment. The sole issue before me is the period of parole ineligibility. The period of parole ineligibility for the offence of second-degree murder is a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years.
3The Crown seeks a period of parole ineligibility of 14 years, pointing to the brutality of the killing, the location in the yard of the victim’s home and the vulnerability of the victim.
4Mr. Wood submits that a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 12 years is appropriate. Mr. Wood points to his prior good character, his long-standing mental illness, the onerous conditions of presentence custody and his age and health concerns.
5In determining the period of time for which Mr. Wood will be ineligible for parole, I am required to consider the factors set out in section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46: the nature of the offence of second-degree murder; the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; and the character of the offender. I must also consider the general principles of sentencing.
6In these reasons, I will begin by reviewing the circumstances of the offence. Next, I will review the circumstances and character of Mr. Wood. I will then apply the principles and objectives of sentencing to the circumstances of this case.
II circumstances of the offence
7Both Mr. Wood and the victim, Mr. Etuen, lived in supportive housing residences located on Coxwell Avenue in Toronto. The two buildings were on opposite sides of Coxwell Avenue. The buildings were run by two different organizations that provided support for persons with mental health issues. In the time leading up to the offence, Mr. Wood told his social worker that for several weeks, he had been preoccupied and disturbed by a person playing loud gospel music and sermons from their balcony.
8On July 26, 2023, Mr. Wood wrote a note to his social worker about the noise, saying that he felt “suicidal” and “murderous”. His social worker did not receive the note until July 27, 2023, the day of the murder.
9On July 27, 2023, at about 10:15 a.m., Mr. Wood went to the yard of Mr. Ituen’s building and stabbed him multiple times with a knife. The pathologist identified approximately 42 sharp force injuries to Mr. Ituen. Police received a call from a witness as the stabbing was taking place. They arrived on scene by 10:21 a.m., but Mr. Ituen was already dead. Mr. Wood was present and had blood on his hands, legs and clothing. He was placed under arrest.
III victim impact
10Mr. Ituen’s nephew provided a Victim Impact Statement describing the deep grief felt by the entire family. The loss of a loved one is always difficult and when that loss is the result of a violent act, it is even more painful.
IV circumstances of the offender
11At the time that he killed Mr. Ituen, Christopher Wood was two days from his 67th birthday. He is now 70 years old. He comes before me as a first offender.
12I have the benefit of a psychiatric assessment by Dr. Yedishtra Naidoo that includes the background and circumstances of Mr. Wood.
13Mr. Wood grew up in Newfoundland. His mother was violent and abusive, both physically and verbally. Mr. Wood’s father did nothing to protect Mr. Wood from the abuse.
14Mr. Wood completed high school and a four-year B.A. at Memorial University. He described being isolated, bullied and having no friends. He moved to Toronto in 1978. He held down some menial jobs after moving to Toronto but had difficulty holding down jobs because of his psychiatric admissions and because he struggled to get along with others while working.
15Mr. Wood was hospitalized with depression in 1976, in Newfoundland. He received Electroconvulsive therapy which was not effective. After moving to Toronto, Mr. Wood was admitted to various hospitals for psychiatric treatment. Dr. Naidoo’s report notes 12 admissions, between 1978 and 1982 and at least two more, between 1988 to1990.
16Mr. Wood reported using cannabis, codeine, alcohol and crack cocaine beginning in the 1980s and up to the time of the offence.
17Dr. Naidoo’s report notes the following diagnoses:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, chronic (PTSD)
Persistent Depressive Disorder
Major Depressive Disorder, severe, recurrent with melancholic features in partial remission
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, with good insight
Avoidant Personality Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder in partial remission
Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate severity
Cocaine Use Disorder moderate severity
Opioid Use Disorder, mild severity
Cannabis Use
18Mr. Wood received some psychosocial support from the residence where he lived before the offence. He had been prescribed Effexor but he was otherwise not receiving any psychiatric care at the time of the offence.
19Ruth Bockner, who was Mr. Wood’s social worker from 2010 or 2011 until her retirement about six months before this offence, provided a letter of support and gave evidence at the sentencing hearing. She said that Mr. Wood had no close relationships and had become very isolated in the years leading up to the offence. He was triggered by noise and music and isolated himself as a result.
20Mr. Wood has physical illnesses as well as psychiatric illnesses. He has colitis, arthritis, Type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension.
21Mr. Wood has been detained in the Toronto East Detention Center (“TEDC”) and the Toronto South Detention Center (“TSDC”) since his arrest. During the period of just under one year that he was at the TEDC, he was housed with three men to a cell for 76% of the time. Because of his colitis and the need to use the toilet, he was the inmate who slept on the floor near the toilet. The need to relieve himself in the cell with two other inmates caused him considerable distress and humiliation. He was moved to protective custody because of bullying. At the TSDC, he has been subject to lockdowns on 193 days and was frequently triple bunked.
22He was not given access to the exercise yard at all during his time at the TEDC.
V analysis
23Parole ineligibility is part of sentencing. All sentencing principles and objectives are relevant to the period of parole ineligibility. Sentencing objectives include the maintenance of public safety; the separation of the offender from society; denunciation; general and specific deterrence; rehabilitation; the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender; and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.
24The overriding principle of sentencing is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity or seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
25The murder of Mr. Ituen was profoundly serious. Mr. Wood confronted Mr. Ituen, who was an unarmed and vulnerable person, in his own yard and killed him in a rage. The murder was exceptionally violent, involving the infliction of 42 sharp force injuries. While there was a degree of planning in Mr. Wood’s attendance at Mr. Ituen’s residence to confront him about the noise, I do not find that he attended with a plan to kill him. I find that the stabbing was a spontaneous act driven by rage.
26There are mitigating factors. Mr. Wood has had an extremely difficult life. He was physically and emotionally abused growing up. He has experienced mental illness throughout his entire adult life. He has been unable to form relationships during childhood and adolescence. He has had no real family or community support, with the notable exception of his former social worker who continues to support him.
27It is also mitigating that Mr. Wood entered a guilty plea to the offence. Guilty pleas are a demonstration of remorse.
28The paramount sentencing objectives in sentencing for second-degree murder are generally denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the public. The paramountcy of those objectives can shift where mental illness plays a central role in the commission of the offence.
29It is agreed that Mr. Wood had several mental illnesses at the time of the offence. Central to the determination of the fit period of parole ineligibility in this case is issue of the role of mental illness in the offence.
30I am satisfied that Mr. Wood’s mental illnesses played a central role in the commission of the offence. I appreciate that neither Dr. Naidoo nor Dr. Pallandi, both of whom conducted psychiatric assessments of Mr. Wood, drew a specific causal connection between the illnesses and the offence. The two assessments addressed the availability of a defence of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” (“NCR”) and concluded that the defence was not available to Mr. Wood, while acknowledging the presence of mental illnesses at the time of the offence. Neither psychiatrist was asked about a connection between the offence and the illnesses except in relation to an NCR defence.
31Dr. Pallandi attributes Mr. Wood’s actions to an “episodic loss of control over his anger a consequence of a relentless and understandably distressing environmental situation”. In Dr. Naidoo’s report, Mr. Wood is described as acting in a “blind rage”.
32In concluding that Mr. Wood’s illnesses played a central role in the offence, I rely on Mr. Wood’s lengthy history of PTSD and his history of being triggered by loud noises. I note that Mr. Wood, despite these factors, had avoided any violence throughout his adult life until committing this offence. He appears to have coped by avoiding other people and isolating himself. In the weeks leading up to the commission of the offence, his isolation did not protect him from the triggering effects of noise because the noise penetrated his residence. I find that his illness significantly contributed to his loss of control.
33I find that Mr. Wood’s mental illness is a factor that shifts some of the weight generally given to deterrence in sentencing for murder to treatment as a means of best protecting the public. (See: R. v. Ellis 2013 ONCA 739, [2013] O.J. No. 5583, leave refused [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 53, at paras. 117 and 118.)
34In determining the appropriate sentence, I have also considered Mr. Wood’s age and medical conditions. Incarceration will be more onerous for Mr. Wood than for a younger, healthier person sentenced for the same offence. His presentence incarceration has been particularly onerous — not only because of the ongoing and deplorable conditions in the detention centers — but because of his vulnerability due to his physical and mental illnesses.
35Having taken into account all of these factors, I have concluded that a life sentence with a period of parole ineligibility of 12 years is the appropriate sentence.
VI conclusions
36I therefore sentence Mr. Wood to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until he has served 12 years of that sentence. In addition, there will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life, a DNA order pursuant to s.487.051 of the Criminal Code and an order pursuant to s. 743.21 that Mr. Wood not communicate directly or indirectly with any known member of Mr. Ituen’s family.
M. Forestell J.
Released: July 29, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Wood, 2026 ONSC 4122
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-40000478-0000
DATE: 20260729
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
CHRISTOPHER WOOD
Reasons for SENTENCE
M. Forestell J.
Released: July 29, 2026