Overview:

[ 1 ] In the early hours of February 22, 2023, Jennifer James believed that she saw Jancharlie Sanchez, the man she was casually seeing, masturbating near her three-month old baby’s head. She attacked him in her apartment causing him to leave. After he left, she put on her coat and shoes, grabbed a kitchen knife which she hid up her sleeve, and left her apartment building to confront him. Ms. James found him at a nearby bus stop and after a struggle, stabbed him in the abdomen. Mr. Sanchez did not know he was stabbed and attempted to return to Ms. James’ apartment to retrieve his phone and coat. Together they headed back towards Ms. James’ building and fought again in a grassy field beside it. After fighting the pair headed to the front of her building when police arrived, presumably called by a passerby who had observed the fight. The police arrested Ms. James. It was then that Mr. Sanchez fell to the ground and discovered his wound. Ultimately, paramedics took him to the hospital. He suffered a six-inch wound running up the middle of his abdomen requiring 30 staples, and Ms. James had punctured his bowel in two places.

[ 2 ] A jury acquitted Ms. James of attempted murder but convicted her of one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault.

[ 3 ] The Crown argues that this was an unprovoked attack that inflicted severe injuries on the offender’s intimate partner as defined in the Criminal Code . 1 She seeks a three-year penitentiary sentence for the aggravated assault, to run concurrently with a six-month sentence for the assault, plus a mandatory ten-year weapons prohibition and DNA order. The latter two are not in dispute.

[ 4 ] Ms. James is a Convention refugee and single mother of four who seeks a sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community (a “conditional sentence”), and a 90-day conditional sentence for the assault to run concurrently.

[ 5 ] The parties agree that Ms. James is entitled to a pre-trial custody credit of 179 days pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code , and the principles set out in R. v. Summers . 2 Ms. James seeks an additional credit of 271 days for time spent under house arrest and ankle monitoring, and 78 days for time spent under curfew.

Brief Conclusion:

[ 6 ] For the reasons that follow, the fit sentence for Ms. James is thirteen months in custody to run concurrently with ninety days for the assault followed by a one-year probation period for the aggravated assault. The thirteen months includes a five-month credit of onerous bail conditions. From the thirteen months, Ms. James will receive 179 days of credit for pre-trial custody leaving 217 days left in custody.

[ 7 ] Ms. James shall also be subject to a ten-year weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Code and a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code.

Analysis:

[ 8 ] Denunciation, deterrence, parity, restraint, proportionality, and individualization are key sentencing principles found in s. 718 of the Criminal Code . Section 718.2 also mandates that I should not deprive Ms. James of her liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. Section 718.2 sets out mandatory aggravating factors – one of which is if the abuse was against a domestic partner, the only one relevant here.

[ 9 ] In passing a custodial sentence of 13 months, I find that Ms. James and Mr. Jancharlie Sanchez were in a dating relationship. I also find that deterrence is of paramount importance in this case and that the restraint principle does not shield Ms. James from a reformatory custodial sentence notwithstanding her difficult upbringing, considerable time spent under house arrest and ankle monitoring and the potential collateral consequences of losing touch with her children and being vulnerable to deportation. I explain below.

1 Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C- 46.

2 R. v. Summers , 2013 ONCA 147 , 114 O.R. (3d) 641 , aff'd 2014 SCC 26 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 .

Who is Ms. James?

[ 10 ] Ms. James is a 27-year-old refugee from Antigua and Barbuda. She had a difficult childhood and an abusive domestic relationship with the father of her four children, now aged 3, 4, 6 and 8. The paternal grandparents had legal custody of the three older children prior to the offence date and got custody of the baby after her arrest. All four children are currently in El Salvador, but she communicates with them through a laptop.

[ 11 ] Ms. James stated that she came to Canada by herself when she was sixteen or seventeen. According to her pre-sentence report, her father was not present in her life and her mother was in effect a single parent. Ms. James had a difficult childhood where she was left alone at the ages of 11-13 to take care of her younger brother and suffered physical abuse from her mother, although she described beatings as a common Antiguan parenting style. Ms. James also lived with her grandparents in the Dominican Republic for a period and witnessed violence and murders. She did not attend school at this time because she was not a citizen of the DR. Instead, she sold breakfasts at the local market to contribute to the household’s income. Ms. James did not finish high school and is working now to obtain her diploma. She is currently taking grade 11 math and English and has expressed an interest in pursuing information technology in college.

[ 12 ] Ms. James struggles with being lonely, depressed and angry at times but does not have any mental health issues or addictions and has no relevant prior criminal record. 3 She is supported by Mr. Graves, her surety who believes she has done a “360” and does not see the side of her as described in the offences. He believes that she can live in the community successfully. Her current income is derived from Ontario welfare.

What events led to the assaults and stabbing?

[ 13 ] In February of 2023, Ms. James was living at 20 Falstaff Avenue in apartment 1905. According to Ms. James, she met Mr. Sanchez in late January/early February and they started seeing each other first as friends and then romantically.

[ 14 ] On February 21, 2023, the parties were at Ms. James’ apartment. At the time, Ms. James lived in the apartment with her three-month-old son and a roommate Sarah. According to Ms. James, she had been with a nearby friend earlier in the day to complete her permanent residence application. When she arrived home in the evening, she had forgotten her papers and stepped out of her apartment to go back to her friend’s house to get them. During this time she left her baby with Sarah. Ms. James testified that she had spoken to Mr. Sanchez earlier that day and asked him if he could bring the baby some medication because he was sick. Mr. Sanchez agreed.

3 Ms. James has a prior conviction for impaired driving which all parties agree should be a neutral factor.

[ 15 ] Mr. Sanchez and his friend Marcello were in the apartment when Ms. James returned home. At least one other friend, Kelvin, later arrived. I accept Ms. James’ testimony that she did not drink that night and was taking care of her baby in the bedroom while Mr. Sanchez was drinking with his friends in her apartment. During the evening of February 21, 2023 and in the early morning of February 22, 2023 Ms. James asked Mr. Sanchez to not get wasted and to turn down the music (exhibits 14 and 15).

[ 16 ] At some point Mr. Sanchez’s friends left leaving Mr. Sanchez, Ms. James and Sarah in the apartment. Sarah was in her bedroom. According to Mr. Sanchez, he told Ms. James that he was going to leave and that sent her into a rage. He believed it was because she thought he was going to see another woman – something that sent her into a rage before, causing her to break a watch that he had left at her place. Ms. James’ evidence was that she left the baby in Mr. Sanchez’s care while she went to take a quick shower, and upon exiting the shower found him masturbating near the baby’s head.

[ 17 ] Both parties testified that Ms. James started punching Mr. Sanchez until he left the apartment. He then headed to a bus stop to go home. Ms. James stated that she told her roommate what had happened and asked her to take care of the baby while she confronted Mr. Sanchez. Ms. James put on her shoes and winter coat, grabbed a kitchen knife and concealed it inside the sleeve of her jacket. Ms. James said that she was very upset. She can be seen on CCTV exiting her apartment to take the elevator down to the lobby and leaving the building.

[ 18 ] When she saw Mr. Sanchez near a bus stop she took out the knife and there was a struggle between the two. The jury’s guilty verdict means that they found beyond a reasonable doubt that at some point during that struggle, Ms. James intentionally stabbed Mr. Sanchez.

Sentencing ranges

[ 19 ] There was no real dispute or much argument about the appropriate sentence for the minor assaults on Mr. Sanchez. I sentence Ms. James to ninety days concurrent with the aggravated assault. The contentious issue is the appropriate sentence for the aggravated assault (count 2).

[ 20 ] The Crown has positioned Ms. James closer to the higher range of four to six years for aggravated assault as set out by Justice Code in R. v. Tourville – a band His Honour described as generally reserved for recidivists with prior criminal records, unprovoked or pre-meditated assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence. 4 More recently Justice Roberts has identified the range to go as high as eight years citing

R. v. Seeratan where Justice Code acknowledged a wider range than initially set out in

4 R. v. Tourville , 2011 ONSC 1677 at para. 30 .

Tourville . 5 The Crown supports her position by reference to several cases ranging from three years to seven-and-a-half years:

a) Three years and six months ( R. v. Fisher , 2023 ONSC 1705 );

b) Four years ( R. v. Navarathinam , 2021 ONSC 4241 ; R. v. Rowe , 2020 ONSC 6667 ; R. v. Silva , 2016 ONSC 2254 );

c) Five years ( R. v. Power , 2018 ONSC 598 ); and

d) Seven-and-a-half years ( R. v. Buni , 2025 ONSC 3948 ).

[ 21 ] In my view, the Crown’s cases and position do not adequately reflect the principles of parity and restraint that are appropriate in this case. I will explain further in my analysis.

[ 22 ] The defence places Ms. James at the top of Tourville ’s mid-range where courts have imposed sentences of between 18 months and two years less a day. According to Justice Code’s survey of these cases, they involve first time offenders and contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused has resorted to excessive force. Defence counsel provides a range of cases from a suspended sentence to 19 months and provided a chart summarizing those cases. I attach the chart as appendix A to these reasons. Ms. James asserts that the closest case to hers is R. v. Mohammad , 6 a case where Mr. Mohammad received a nine-month custodial sentence and one year probation for stabbing someone from a rival group in a sports bar. He was a youthful first-time offender and had many pro-social qualities. Justice Mew rejected the defence’s submission that Mr. Mohammad’s sentence should be equivalent to time already spent in custody and time credited for his four years under house arrest plus three years probation. Justice Mew was concerned about denunciation and general deterrence and relied on Justice Leach’s comments in R. v. Kavinsky that the community must think that carrying knives to social functions and using them to resolve conflict will be dealt with sternly. 7

[ 23 ] Given Ms. James’ circumstances, I agree that Ms. James falls within this middle band of cases warranting a sentence of less than two years. The issue is whether Ms. James should serve her sentence in custody or in the community. Tourville and Seerattan recognize that in exceptional cases, non-custodial sentences are available. I do not think Ms. James is one such exception. I agree that Mohammad is instructive when applying the principles of parity and restraint. He received a custodial sentence. I also explain below that Ms. James should receive a slightly longer custodial sentence than Mr. Mohammad did to meet the paramount goals of denunciation and deterrence.

5 See R. v. Navarathinam , 2021 ONSC 4241 at paras. 28-29 ; R. v. Seerattan , 2019 ONSC 4340 . The Court of Appeal has endorsed Justice Code’s approach as recently as 2020 in R. v. Randhawa , 2020 ONCA 668 .

6 R. v. Mohammad , 2022 ONSC 7234 .

7 Mohammad at para. 27.

Aggravating factors impacting sentence

a) Ms. James and Mr. Sanchez were intimate partners

[ 24 ] The Crown must prove all aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt to rely on them at sentencing. For both the assault and aggravated assault convictions, the Crown submits that it is aggravating that Ms. James and Mr. Sanchez were intimate partners as set out in

s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code .

[ 25 ] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. James and Mr. Sanchez were intimate partners. Section 2 of the Code defines intimate partners. It includes a “dating partner”. There is little jurisprudence on the definition of dating partner. The Court of Appeal for Ontario discussed its meaning in R. v. R.G. , 8 a sexual assault case, where the accused and the complainant had been casually seeing each other for about three weeks before the assaults. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge’s ruling that the parties were intimate partners as contemplated by the Code . In so doing, Justice Trotter guides sentencing judges away from entering value-laden debates whether a relationship was serious enough to trigger the section. Instead, he focused on the fact that the offender and complainant were in a relationship of trust and he used this relationship to meet her in her home and sexually assault her. It is this breach of trust, he suggests, that the legislation is intended to address. 9 I would add however, that the definition cannot be so broad that it captures close friends who might have a relationship of trust. The word “dating” necessarily connotes a romantic element to the relationship whether it involves physical intimacy or not.

[ 26 ] Mr. Sanchez and Ms. James were dating as understood colloquially and based on Justice Trotter’s comments in R.G. The parties described a relationship that had not yet crystallized to a formal label of boyfriend/girlfriend but was almost there. Mr. Sanchez said that they met at the beginning of February at a party. They met up a few days after and began as friends getting to know each other. Mr. Sanchez said that they got together quite a few times before the incident – always at her apartment except for a couple of times when he took her out for dinner and went to a Dominican club with her. Ms. James testified to a similar timeline where the relationship moved from friendship to intimacy. She recalled going to Red Lobster with him once. Ms. James also testified that Mr. Sanchez was staying on her couch during the time of the stabbing. She referred to him as “amore” in her text messages to him and trusted him to be alone with her son. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence that Ms. James and Mr. Sanchez were intimate partners at the time of the offences.

b) There is doubt whether the attacks were unprovoked

8 R. v. R.G. , 2024 ONCA 917 .

9 R.G. at paras. 5- 6 .

[ 27 ] The Crown argues that Ms. James’ attacks on Mr. Sanchez were unprovoked and is an aggravating factor on sentencing. I do not find that this has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 28 ] The Crown and defence have different theories on why Ms. James attacked Mr. Sanchez. The Crown suggests that Ms. James attacked him out of a jealous rage that Mr. Sanchez was leaving her apartment to see another woman. Ms. James argues that she believed that Mr. Sanchez had violated her baby by masturbating near his head.

[ 29 ] I do not find Mr. Sanchez’s recollection of the night’s events reliable – he admitted in cross-examination that the night was hazy up until the first attack in the apartment. I accept that Ms. James believed that Mr. Sanchez was masturbating in front of her baby and that is what fuelled her reaction. Her account of the evening’s events was more credible and reliable. For example, Ms. James’ described that she was in her bedroom for most of the night taking care of her baby and had to ask Mr. Sanchez to keep the music down. This aligns with the exhibited text messages. Mr. Sanchez testified that Ms. James came into the apartment “already lit” by Crown Royal and was controlling the music the whole night. When Crown counsel put the text messages to Mr. Sanchez, he stated that his memory of the evening was not good, but he recalls that her phone was connected to the TV. It also does not make sense that Ms. James would fly into a rage simply upon Mr. Sanchez announcing that he was leaving the apartment. He agreed in cross-examination that he had left on other occasions without incident. While Mr. Sanchez testified that Ms. James broke a watch on a previous occasion because she thought he was seeing another woman, this isolated incident does not make it reasonable that absent any other discussions that evening, Mr. Sanchez’s sudden intention to leave triggered a violent jealous rage. A parent violently reacting to what they believe was an assault on their baby is more believable.

c) Ms. James put thought into grabbing a knife and pursuing Mr. Sanchez

[ 30 ] That said, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. James had an opportunity to take a different approach to what she believed was a serious violation of her baby. She made the conscious decision to go out of her way to pursue and harm Mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez had left the apartment when Ms. James decided to pursue him. Any danger to the baby was no longer present. Instead of tending to her baby or calling the police, Ms. James decided to leave her baby with her roommate, grab a kitchen knife, take the time to conceal it, put on winter clothing to go outside, find Mr. Sanchez, stab him and assault him again. This is aggravating with respect to both convictions for assault and aggravated assault.

d) Ms. James inflicted serious injuries

[ 31 ] The parties agree that Ms. James inflicted a significant wound as shown and explained in exhibits 4-12 and that this is aggravating with respect to the aggravated assault conviction only.

e) Mr. Sanchez was significantly impacted

[ 32 ] Mr. Sanchez did not provide a formal victim impact statement but testified at trial that it took him four to five months to recover even slightly from his injuries and another half year to get better. He testified that every morning he throws up and he still feels a pressure in his stomach. After the incident, Mr. Sanchez locked himself in the house for a year and was not able to work. This evidence was not shaken in cross-examination. The impact on him is aggravating with respect to the aggravated assault.

Mitigating factors impacting sentence

[ 33 ] Ms. James is a youthful offender with a limited and unrelated criminal record. She has had challenging personal circumstances and has expressed remorse over Mr. Sanchez’s injuries. She understands now that she must not take matters into her own hands for any future perceived threats. This is mitigating for all counts, even though she maintains, as is her right, that the stabbing was an accident. I accept that she is a devoted mother who wants her children back. I have no information on why they left her custody but give her the benefit of the doubt when she stated that it was related to violence in the home caused by the father. I also consider as significant and different from all cases cited, that Ms. James reacted in defence of her baby, however wrong and ill-conceived her response was.

[ 34 ] Ms. James has also been without incident on surety release with house arrest and GPS ankle monitoring for 542 days. She argues that this is a mitigating factor and that I should credit her 0.5 days for each day of restrictive bail amounting to 271 days. She seeks further mitigation for 389 days spent on surety bail with a curfew calculated at 0.2 days per day on surety bail for a total of 78 days. Time spent on restrictive bail is one mitigating factor of the totality of factors to consider in crafting an appropriate sentence and not a mathematical credit to be deducted from sentence. 10 That said Justice Doherty in Marshall was careful to affirm that it was not necessarily inappropriate to quantify this mitigating factor as long as it does not take unwarranted significance and reduce the sentence to one that is unfit. 11

[ 35 ] The amount of credit depends on several factors including the length of time spent under house arrest, the stringency of the conditions, the impact on Ms. James’ liberty and her ability to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. However, where, as in the present case, the Crown disagrees on the impact of the conditions of bail on Ms. James, it was incumbent on Ms. James to establish the impact of the conditions on a balance of probabilities. 12

10 R. v. Marshall , 2021 ONCA 344 , 174 W.C.B. (2d) 88 at para. 52 .

11 Marshall at para. 53.

12 R. v. Downes , 79 O.R. (3d) 321 , 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488 (C.A.) at para. 37 ; R. v. Place , 2020 ONCA 546 , 166 W.C.B. (2d)

16 at para. 20.

[ 36 ] Ms. James provided an affidavit setting out the impact of house arrest and ankle monitoring on her. The Crown cross-examined her on this affidavit. It significantly neutralized the impacts claimed by Ms. James in her affidavit. I conclude that Ms. James was not particularly affected by her time on house arrest and ankle monitoring other than the expected psychological and emotional stress of bail restrictions. For example, Ms. James stated that in her affidavit that she could not see her children while on house arrest because it was dependant on the availability of others. However, by the time Ms. James was on bail she already did not have custody of three of her four children. Ms. James agreed in cross-examination that her ability to see her children was always dependant on the will of the paternal grandparents who blamed her for their son’s incarceration.

[ 37 ] Ms. James testified that house arrest was difficult because she was not used to it and was not mentally or emotionally in a position to work. As noted in R. v. Joseph , mitigation is sometimes given for strict bail conditions because they can be punitive and akin to custody. 13 The emotional and psychological upset of house arrest as described by Ms. James, however distressing, is not particularly punitive. Ms. James also identified everyday activities that she could not do. Again, these are unpleasant but not particularly onerous or punitive. After the house arrest was lifted, Ms. James did get a job for a couple of months but then stopped working and used the time to pursue her high school diploma while collecting social assistance income.

[ 38 ] In sum, I am prepared to treat Ms. James’ time under house arrest and ankle monitoring as mitigating because she was deprived of her liberty and was restricted in her movements. The emotional and psychological impacts are not nothing. Further, while she always had to work with the paternal grandparents to see her children, the surety bail and house arrest added an additional layer for her to navigate to see her young children. I give some effect to these challenging with a credit of five months for that time.

[ 39 ] The parties agree that I must also consider the immigration consequences of any sentence over six months on Ms. James as a Convention refugee under section 115(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . 14 Pursuant to section 36(1) and (2), along with section 115(2)(a), Ms. James could be deported back to Antigua and Barbuda if in the opinion of the Minister, she is a danger to the public. If she is not deported, Ms. James will nevertheless be ineligible for permanent residency unless she receives a record suspension. Neither party submits that Ms. James is eligible for a sentence of less than six months which would give her a right of appeal from a deportation order. Thus the impact of conviction is greater on Ms. James than it would be on a Canadian citizen.

[ 40 ] Finally, I consider the impact of a jail term on Ms. James’ ability to communicate with her children and start proceedings to regain legal decision-making over them. I accept that she can communicate with them now through a computer and that any lengthy period of

13 R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733 , 153 O.R. (3d) 145 at para. 108 , relying on Downes at para. 29 .

14 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27.

non-communication with them will affect her bond, given their young ages. I also consider the difficulty Ms. James may have in commencing proceeding to regain custody of her children if required to instruct counsel or deal with the Children’s Aid Society while incarcerated.

Conclusion:

[ 41 ] I have considered the cases both sides have provided. I agree that the principles of parity and restraint place Ms. James in the middle band of cases warranting a reformatory sentence – not the ones in the higher end where the offenders had criminal records (as in Fisher , Navarathinam , Silva and Power ).

[ 42 ] I am satisfied that Ms. James does not pose a threat to society and is not likely to re-offend. She is genuinely pursuing a pro-social life and wants to regain a relationship with her children and better herself. The fact that Ms. James believed she was protecting her baby distinguishes her case from any of those provided by the Crown. While it was not the right response, it was an understandable one.

[ 43 ] I find Mohammad instructive but the carceral sentence too low in addressing the specific and general deterrence required in this case. The appropriate sentence for the aggravated assault (count 2) is thirteen months. Further, it is inappropriate for Ms. James to serve her time in the community. While I am sympathetic to the serious collateral consequence of incarceration on Ms. James’ bond with her children, a conditional sentence to be served in the community is unfit given the gravity of the planned and serious attack on Mr. Sanchez. Any parent could understand Ms. James’ reaction, but no one should condone her response. Ms. James had time to make a different decision and leave Mr. Sanchez alone. She chose not too. I have a heightened concern for both denunciation and general deterrence in this case and I need to reflect those concerns in Ms. James’ sentence. 15 I appreciate that Ms. James grew up in violence and has experienced trauma in her life. However, violence is not the right response to perceived violence, however egregious the perceived act may be. Ms. James must understand, as should all parents and caregivers in similar circumstances, that one cannot take the law into their own hands even to protect children. This is an essential principle necessary to maintain the rule of law. Ms. James was lucky that Mr. Sanchez’s injuries were not worse, or fatal. A short carceral sentence is warranted.

[ 44 ] The fact that the sentence is only thirteen months reflects the five-month credit that I have given Ms. James for 542 days on house arrest and GPS and recognizes the collateral impact on her bond with her children and on her refugee status. Ms. James is entitled to

15 I acknowledge that Ms. James told the pre-sentence report writer that she now understands that the better route would have been to call the authorities or take a different route.

a credit of 179 days for 119 days spent in custody at a ratio of 1.5:1. This leaves 271 remaining days in custody.

[ 45 ] She shall also be subject to a ten-year weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Code

and a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code.

[ 46 ] There was little argument on the appropriate sentence for the relatively minor assault (count 1). I sentence Ms. James to ninety days concurrent with count 2.

[ 47 ] After serving time in custody Ms. James shall have a one-year period of probation with the following conditions:

a) Report as directed to your Probation Officer;

b) 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 for: Mental Health Psychiatric/Psychological Issues, Anger Management Issues and Domestic Violence Programming;

c) Sign any release of information forms as will enable your Probation Officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;

d) Reside at an address approved of by your Probation Officer and be amenable to the rules and routines of that residence.

e) Do not contact, in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with: Jan Charlie Sanchez; and

f) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code .

P.T. Sugunasiri J.

Released: February 17, 2026

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25- 50000581

DATE: 2026-02- 17

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JENNIFER JAMES

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCE

P.T.Sugunasiri J.

Released: February 17, 2026

Appendix A -

R v Jennifer James Defence Case Law Chart

Case

Details

Aggravating

Mitigating

Sentence

R v White , 2014 ONSC 2878

Jury Trial Not Guilty of Attempt murder but guilty of aggravated assault Single stab wound to right chest causing a lung laceration. Crown Position: • 12 months in jail • 2 years of probation Defence Position: • Suspended Sentence • Probation Defendant suffered from a “severe beating” from the victim prior to stabbing him.

“…the serious nature of the offence, the use of a knife as a weapon, the domestic context of the stabbing making this…a legislatively mandated aggravating circumstance, and the severity of the injury to the victim” (para 74)

“The circumstances serving to mitigate sentence are the accused’s youthfulness at the time of the stabbing, her lack of a prior criminal record, her consistently pro-social lifestyle, her compliance with almost four years of bail conditions, her genuine remorse and her acceptance of responsibility” (para 75)

Suspended Sentence 2 years of probation (para 99)

R v Mohammad , 2022 ONSC 7234

Judge-alone trial Guilty of Aggravated Assault Single stab wound causing puncture of left lung. Crown Position: • 18 months in jail • 2 years of probation Defence Position • Suspended Sentence • Probation

“Extraordinary dangerous” (para 14) Victim “was in a vulnerable position” (Para 14)

No Criminal Record Four years of restrictive bail conditions (para 16) The pre-sentence report is largely positive (para 28)

9 months for the aggravated assault minus pre-trial custody 6 months concurrent for possessing a weapon DNA 10-year weapon prohibition 2 years of probation (paras 31- 36)

R v Seegobinsingh , 2025 ONCJ 458

Guilty Plea on ﬁrst day of trial to Aggravated Assault, Fail to Comply with a Release Order, and Weapons Dangerous While on bail, chased victim, who was a stranger stabbed him in the upper right chest area resulting in tube place in chest and three staples (para 2) Crown Position: • 15 months jail for aggravated assault • 2 months for weapons dangerous concurrent • 1 month for fail to comply with release concurrent • 2 years probation Defence Position: • Conditional Sentence in the range of 4-6 months

“…the use of a knife in a public setting, resulting in serious injuries to the victim that required surgery to repair the lung and spleen. The assault occurred while Mr. Seegobinsingh was already facing a charge for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, also involving a knife.” (para 27)

“Mr. Seegobinsingh is a youthful, ﬁrst-time offender with no prior criminal record. He pleaded guilty and expressed genuine remorse. He has complied with strict bail conditions over two years, including house arrest and GPS monitoring, which signiﬁcantly restricted his liberty. He endured harsh pre-trial custody conditions during the pandemic, including isolation and inadequate access to basic hygiene and medical care. He has maintained steady employment and is described by others as caring and non-violent individual, suggesting strong rehabilitative potential.” (para 28)

15 months jail minus pre-trial custody as follows: - 104 days Summers Credit - 40 days Duncan Credit - 454 days of Downes Credit (907 days of restrictive bail conditions + GPS monitoring) The Defendant’s pre-trial custody exceeded the 15-month jail term sought by the Crown, so the court noted the pre-trial custody and placed them on 2 years of probation and ordered both a section 109 order and DNA order. (Para 30- 33)

R v Forbes , 2023 ONSC 6089

Guilty plea to Aggravated Assault. Defendant retrieved knife from the kitchen and stabbed boyfriend in his leg and thigh. Five stitches required. Victim also had superﬁcial wounds to his head and upper back. (para 2) Crown Position: • 9 months jail • Probation Defence Position: • Conditional Sentence • Probation

Victim was Defendant’s intimate partner Offence had elements of a home invasion Defendant stabbed Victim with a knife after waking him up The offence required some planning (para 5)

No Criminal Record Single mother of ﬁve children who lived with three of them Difficult childhood Abusive relationships Worked in a number of low paying jobs Gainfully employed (para 6)

9-month conditional sentence with 1 year of probation (para 19)

R v Byford , 2016 OJ No 3413

Guilty plea to aggravated assault. Defendant grabbed steak knife, chased victim (defendant’s mother’s domestic partner), and stabbed him three (3) times. Stab wound to the neck, mid-back, and lower back. Scratches on the left arm and left leg. Crown Position: • 18 months to 2 years less a day in jail followed by probation Defence Position: • “Any jail sentence should be as short as possible and followed for a long period of probation”

Victim was the domestic partner of defendant’s mother Assault occurred in Victim’s own home Defendant used a weapon Defendant pursued Victim in order to attack him Defendant stabbed victim multiple times The assault continues to have a physical and emotional impact on Victim (para 32)

No Criminal Record Guilty plea which is a sign of remorse and acceptance of responsibility Positive pre-sentence report (para 32- 33)

16 months jail 2 years of probation (para 38)

R v Perdomopena , 2011 OJ No 6489 R v Perdomopena , 2012 ONCA 627 19-month sentence considered lenient but not a marked departure from an accept range (para 2)

Guilty plea to Aggravated Assault and Break and Enter (residential) Defendant attended ex-wife’s home, forced the front door open, entered the home, chased victim (ex-wife’s new domestic partner) outside the home, stabbed victim: a) In the left shoulder b) In the abdomen area c) In the right thigh d) Hands 23 stitches including his right nerve being severed. (para 4- 5)

Offence took place in the context of a domestic dispute Defendant broke into home of ex-wife Knife used Psychological and physical trauma suffered by victim (para 23)

Guilty Plea No planning on the part of the defendant No criminal record Offence was out of character Remorseful (para 24)

19 months jail minus pre-trial custody as follows: a) 258 days of pre-trial custody b) 61 days of pre-trial custody c) 180 days credit for close to 22 months of house arrest 570 days minus 499 days credit for 71 days in custody left to serve Defendant ordered to serve the remainder on an intermittent basis 2 years of probation Court (Paras 34- 52)

Crown Position • 6 years custody Defence Position • 18 to 20 months custody

R. v. James, 2026 ONSC 640

Case Summary