ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
JOSHUA PILGRIM
Counsel:
Nathaniel Smith, for the Crown
Scott Reid, for Mr. Pilgrim
HEARD: July 15, 16, and 27, 2026
M. Forestell J.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Overview
1Joshua Pilgrim entered a guilty plea on July 15, 2026, to a charge of manslaughter in relation to the April 24, 2024 death of Ryan Williams. A hearing was held on July 15 and 16, 2026 to determine whether the Crown had proved an aggravating fact. I gave an oral decision on July 16, 2026, indicating that the aggravating fact had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing hearing continued on July 16th and 27th and I reserved my decision until today.
Circumstances of the Offence
2Mr. Pilgrim admitted that on April 24, 2024, he and three others attended the apartment where Mr. Williams lived with his mother. One of the persons who attended, Ryan Conroy, attended to recover a case of Ensure that Mr. Williams had stolen from Tina Nowakowski. Tina Nowaskwaski and Victoria Wilding also went to the apartment.
3Mr. Pilgrim wished to recover drugs that he believed Mr. Williams had taken from him, or to recover money equivalent in value to the drugs. When they entered the apartment, Mr. Conroy demanded the Ensure from Mr. Williams. The dispute escalated into a physical fight between Mr. Conroy and Mr. Williams. Mr. Conroy punched Mr. Williams several times. The two women were inadvertently blocking Mr. Williams from leaving the apartment through the front door.
4During the physical altercation between Mr. Conroy and Mr. Williams, Mr. Pilgrim threatened to use violence against Mr. Williams if Mr. Williams did not pay for the drugs he had taken.
5Mr. Pilgrim was aware at the time that he made the threat, that Mr. Williams was known to climb from one balcony to another in the apartment building.
6Mr. Pilgrim knew, when he threatened Mr. Williams, that Mr. Williams might try to flee the apartment by climbing from the balcony.
7Mr. Williams did run from the apartment onto the balcony and tried to climb onto another balcony. He fell from the balcony and died of blunt force injuries.
8The autopsy toxicology results showed that Mr. Williams had drugs, including Fentanyl, in his system at the time of his death.
9Mr. Pilgrim admitted that after his arrest and detention, he asked someone in the jail to have someone contact one of the witnesses, Ms. Nowakowski, and tell her to testify in court that there was no physical altercation between him and Mr. Williams. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Pilgrim was asking Ms. Nowakowski to provide a truthful account, but Mr. Pilgrim admits that in asking her to provide specific testimony, he committed the offence of attempting to obstruct justice.
10I found Mr. Pilgrim guilty based on these facts.
Aggravating Fact- Gardiner hearing
11In addition to the agreed facts, the Crown alleged that Mr. Pilgrim wielded a knife when he threatened Mr. Williams and that he struck out at Mr. Williams before Mr. Williams ran to the balcony. The Crown alleged that the knife wielded by Mr. Pilgrim in this manner cut through the red hoodie that was worn by Mr. Williams. Mr. Pilgrim denied this aggravating fact.
12The Crown must prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
13The evidence relied upon by the Crown to prove this contested fact consists of the following:
The preliminary inquiry transcripts of the evidence of Mr. Conroy, Ms. Wilding and Mr. Williams' mother Rhonda Dalton;
The sworn police statement of Tina Nowakowski;
Photographs of the red hoodie, a black hoodie the victim wore under the red hoodie, and a knife and a hatchet seized from the accused on arrest; and
The report and testimony of Gerri Lynne Vardy, a chemist at the CFS who examined fibres from the knife and compared them to fibres from the red hoodie.
14Of the four witnesses who were in the apartment at the time of the incident, the only witness who testified that she saw Mr. Pilgrim wielding a bladed weapon was Ms. Dalton, the mother of the victim.
15Ms. Dalton testified that she saw Mr. Pilgrim repeatedly strike or, as she described it, 'tap' Mr. Williams on the temple with a hatchet. She saw Mr. Williams bleeding from his temples but could not say if he was already bleeding before the tapping with the hatchet began. She saw Mr. Pilgrim with two weapons clanging together but could not say what the other weapon was. Ms. Dalton had taken crack and fentanyl the day of the incident. She had a longstanding substance abuse problem. She conceded that she had memory issues.
16No other person in the apartment saw Mr. Pilgrim wielding a hatchet or striking Mr. Williams with a hatchet. There were no sharp force injuries found on the body of Mr. Williams at autopsy.
17Ms. Wilding testified that she saw a slim object in the hand of Mr. Pilgrim. However, in addition to consuming fentanyl that day, Ms. Wilding needed glasses to see properly and was not wearing her glasses that day.
18Ms. Wilding reported seeing slices in the red hoodie when the altercation between Mr. Williams and Mr. Conroy was ending. There are two to three small cuts in the back of the red hoodie, as shown in the photographs. According to Ms. Wilding, the cuts were present in the back of the hoodie before there was any argument between Mr. Pilgrim and Mr. Williams.
19Mr. Conroy testified that he had a physical altercation with Mr. Williams. He agreed that he punched Mr. Williams and that the punching could have caused bleeding to Mr. Williams' face. Mr. Pilgrim was nearby. Mr. Conroy did not see Mr. Pilgrim with any weapon. He testified that Mr. Pilgrim argued with Mr. Williams after Mr. Conroy fought with him. This was about Mr. Williams smoking some of Mr. Pilgrim's drugs. He testified that Mr. Williams was “really high”, frantic and "acting all weird". Mr. Conroy testified that during his physical altercation with Mr. Williams, he heard Mr. Williams say words to the effect of, “Why are you going to stab me?” He had no idea why Mr. Williams said those words.
20Mr. Conroy was also a drug user at the time of the incident. He used Fentanyl before the incident.
21In her police statement, Ms. Nowakowski reported that Mr. Conroy and Mr. Williams fought and then Mr. Pilgrim and Mr. Williams fought. She recalled hearing Mr. Williams say something like, "Why are you stabbing me?” She did not see any weapons. She was a drug user at the time. Mr. Conroy, who was her boyfriend at the time, testified that Ms. Nowakowski consumed Fentanyl before the incident.
22Ms. Vardy, the forensic scientist who examined the fibres from the knife seized from Mr. Pilgrim, testified that seven of the fibres from the knife were indistinguishable from the fibres from the red hoodie worn by Mr. Williams when he died.
23Ms. Vardy agreed that there were at least three possible inferences from the comparison:
(i) that the fibres on the knife came from the red hoodie worn by Mr. Williams;
(ii) that the fibres on the knife came from an identical red hoodie that was not the red hoodie worn by Mr. Williams; or
(iii) that the fibres from the knife came from a different item or items that used the same fabric or textile.
24I do not find the evidence of Ms. Dalton to be credible or reliable. There are several issues with her evidence. She was under the influence of drugs, she had memory issues, and she experienced a traumatic event the day of the incident. I recognize that there are similar issues with the testimony and witness statements of the other three people present in the apartment. However, Ms. Dalton's account is very different from the account of all of the other witnesses to the altercation. Her account is not supported by any other evidence. There were no sharp force injuries on the body of Mr. Williams.
25The theory of the Crown is that Mr. Pilgrim struck out at Mr. Williams and caused the two cuts in his red hoodie. There is no direct evidence of this occurring. The evidence is entirely circumstantial.
26Where, as in this case, the evidence is wholly or substantially circumstantial, I can only find in favour of the Crown on the disputed issue if the only reasonable inference on the entirety of the evidence is that Mr. Pilgrim wielded the knife (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33).
27This assessment requires me to consider "all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense" (Villaroman , at para. 30). If there is any doubt about the aggravating factor having been proven, it must be resolved in Mr. Pilgrim’s favour.
28There are, in this case, other reasonable inferences. It is reasonable to infer that there were pre-existing cuts on the red hoodie and that the words spoken by Mr. Williams were uttered in response to Mr. Pilgrim's admitted verbal threat to harm him. The red fibres on the knife could have been deposited from contact with other items made from the same or similar fabric.
29It is for these reasons, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the aggravating fact.
Victim Impact
30On the sentencing hearing, I received Victim Impact Statements from Mr. Pilgrim’s sister, brother and mother. It is important to remember and acknowledge that Ryan Williams was more than a statistic; and that he was more than just a name spoken in a courtroom. As his sister said in her Victim Impact Statement, Ryan Williams was a son, a nephew, a cousin, an uncle, a partner and a father. Mr. Williams had a difficult life without the opportunities that many others have. In spite of the obstacles he faced, he was a kind and loving person. His loved ones have been profoundly impacted by this tragic loss.
Circumstances of the Offender
31I also have evidence and submissions concerning Mr. Pilgrim’s background and circumstances.
32Mr. Pilgrim is 31 years old. He has two children. He has a minor criminal record, with six convictions from 2013 to 2022. Mr. Pilgrim was born in Canada. His father was an alcoholic who assaulted Mr. Pilgrim’s mother and Mr. Pilgrim when he was a child. He went into foster care at age 12 because he frequently ran away from home. From age 12 to 16 he was in three different foster homes and two group homes. He only achieved a few high school credits.
33Mr. Pilgrim experienced depression and anxiety.
34Mr. Pilgrim worked for about eight years in warehousing. However, proximate to his arrest, he was not working. He was unhoused and using drugs.
Conditions of Detention
35Mr. Pilgrim has been incarcerated since his arrest on this charge. He has been detained in the Toronto South Detention Center (“TSDC”) for 824 days.
36I have the records from the TSDC about the number of times Mr. Pilgrim was subjected to lockdowns and the number of times he was triple-bunked in a cell meant for two inmates. He was locked down 257 times in the 824 days of detention. The records show that he was triple-bunked 296 times but by Mr. Pilgrim’s calculation, it was closer to 345-350 days of triple-bunking. He was the inmate who slept on the floor about 200 to 220 nights.
37Mr. Pilgrim gave evidence about the conditions in the TSDC and the impact of those conditions upon him. The appalling conditions in the TSDC are sadly well known to this Court. There have been numerous decisions of judges of this court and judges of the Ontario Court of Justice that have condemned the inhumane conditions at the Toronto area detention centers.
38In this case, Mr. Pilgrim was denied regular access to the telephone, exercise, dental care and basic hygiene.
39The showers at the TSDC are moldy. There are insects in the living area of the jail. The toilets on the range are clogged and unusable.
40To his credit – in spite of the conditions, Mr. Pilgrim has used his time in custody to take high school courses. He is very close to completing high school. He is interested in pursuing post-secondary education upon his release.
Positions of the Parties
41The Crown seeks a sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Mr. Pilgrim submits that a sentence of three years and four months should be imposed.
Law and Analysis
42The fundamental purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 is to “contribute …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; (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; …and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community”.
43Denunciation and deterrence are generally the predominant sentencing objectives in sentencing for manslaughter. The killing of another person by committing an unlawful act must be strongly denounced by society. However, rehabilitation remains a relevant consideration. As Chief Justice Wagner wrote in R. v. Bissonette, 2022 SCC 23 “The objective of rehabilitation is intimately linked to human dignity in that it reflects the conviction that all individuals carry within themselves the capacity to reform and re‑enter society.”
44The range of sentences imposed in manslaughter cases is very broad. The reason for the range of sentencing for manslaughter was explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] S.C.J. No. 91 (S.C.C.), at para. 86:
…Because manslaughter can occur in a wide variety of circumstances, the penalties must be flexible. An unintentional killing while committing a minor offence, for example, properly attracts a much lighter sentence than an unintentional killing where the circumstances indicate an awareness of risk of death just short of what would be required to infer the intent required for murder. The point is, the sentence can be and is tailored to suit the degree of moral fault of the offender. …
45The Alberta Court of Appeal explained in R. v. Ferguson, 2006 ABCA 261, [2006] A.J. No. 1150 (C.A.), at paras. 60 and 61, aff'd 2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96 (S.C.C.) that “[a]n assessment of moral culpability involves a consideration of the particular circumstances of the case including: the nature, quality and gravity of the act; the method and manner by which the act was committed; the offender's awareness of the risk; and what should have been in the offender's mind, had he or she acted reasonably. One begins the analysis by classifying culpability on the basis of subjective and objective intent. The lowest level of moral blameworthiness is simply the mens rea the Crown must prove: that a reasonable person would know the unlawful act would subject [the victim] to the risk of bodily harm”.
46The nature of the act in this case was a threat, not an act of physical violence. The intent in this case was objective. That is, that a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of serious harm in the circumstances. It is not suggested that Mr. Pilgrim foresaw the risk of such harm or death to the victim.
47The circumstances place this very unusual case near the lower end of the spectrum of moral blameworthiness.
48There are, however, aggravating circumstances to be considered. These are:
The offence had a profound impact on the family of the victim;
The offence occurred in the home of the victim;
The victim was outnumbered; and
Mr. Pilgrim attempted to influence the testimony of a witness.
49There are also mitigating factors. These are:
Mr. Pilgrim entered a guilty plea. He has accepted responsibility and is remorseful for his role in this offence;
He is a relatively youthful offender;
He has been incarcerated in punitive conditions while awaiting sentence; and
He has used his time in custody productively to pursue his education.
50In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I must consider sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences, while keeping in mind that sentencing is highly individualized and no two cases are identical.
51While there are no cases with identical facts to this one, I find the decision of Justice Davies in R. v. Charrion, 2026 ONSC 3531 to be most helpful. In that case, the offender pushed the victim in anger when they were standing on the landing of a staircase. The victim, who was intoxicated, fell down the stairs and suffered serious injuries that later caused his death. The offence occurred in the context of an intimate partner relationship. Ms. Charrion did not seek medical help for the victim. Ms. Charrion was remorseful, had good prospects for rehabilitation and had no criminal record. She spent little time in presentence custody but had been on a strict bail for two years. Justice Davies imposed a sentence of 3.5 years.
52While Mr. Pilgrim has the aggravating factors of a criminal record and an attempt to obstruct justice, unlike the Charrion case, Mr. Pilgrim’s offence lacks the aggravating factor of occurring in the context of an intimate relationship.
53The additional significant factor in this case is the conditions of presentence custody.
54Harsh conditions of presentence custody serve to mitigate a sentence. They cannot justify an otherwise unfit sentence.
55While I recognize that I need not quantify the mitigation for punitive conditions of presentence custody, I will do so in the interest of transparency. Before taking into account the mitigation because of punitive conditions of presentence custody, the sentence I would have imposed is a sentence of three years and eight months. The mitigation for harsh conditions serves to bring that sentence to a sentence of three years and four months. Mr. Pilgrim has endured extremely punitive conditions for a significant period of time. The conditions impacted his physical and mental health. Mitigation quantified as four months recognizes the seriousness of these conditions but does not reduce the sentence to a level that would be unfit, in light of the aggravating factors.
Conclusion
56I therefore impose a sentence of three years and four months, or 1,219 days before statutory credit for presentence custody at the rate of 1.5 to 1. Mr. Pilgrim has been in custody for 824 days. He is therefore credited with 1,237 days. Mr Pilgrim has therefore served his sentence. The record will reflect a sentence remaining to be served of one day.
57Manslaughter is a "primary designated offence" in s. 487.04, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with forensic DNA analysis and the securing of DNA samples. As such, s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code makes such an order mandatory. Therefore, I order that Mr. Pilgrim provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.
58There will be a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Pilgrim from possession of any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
59In light of Mr. Pilgrim’s circumstances, the Victim Fine Surcharge is waived.
M. Forestell J.
Released: July 28, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Pilgrim, 2026 ONSC 4370
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000670-0000
DATE: 20260728
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
JOSHUA PILGRIM
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
M. Forestell J.
Released: July 28, 2026