CITATION: R. v. Edwards, 2026 ONSC 807

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-00000015

DELIVERED ORALLY: 20260220 DATE: 20260220

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

SHERESE ALICIA EDWARDS

Applicant

L. Sela, for the Crown

J. Dos Santos, for the Applicant

HEARD: December 10, 2025

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

VALLEE J.

Overview

1Ms. Edwards was charged with one count of aggravated assault on Jamie Weatherbee. The issue in the trial was self-defence. A jury found her guilty.

The Facts

The circumstances of the offence

2The jury heard evidence that there was an altercation between Sherese Edwards and Jamie Weatherbee in the early morning hours of October 22, 2022 in the parking lot of Stud Lonigans Pub in Town of Wasaga Beach. Ms. Edwards had worked there for a couple of months before this happened. On that night, she was not working. She had gone there to socialize.

3An audio recording of the event was provided to the court. Ms. Weatherbee had been inside the pub. Something happened in there regarding a woman named Kayla that made her angry. Ms. Edwards was standing in the parking lot near her car smoking a cigarette. Other people were standing in the parking lot. Ms. Weatherbee came out of the bar looking for Kayla. She was shouting. There was a verbal exchange between Ms. Weatherbee and Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards shouted at her to leave Kayla alone. She told Ms. Weatherbee that she had a knife.

4Ms. Weatherbee came charging at Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards used aggravating language by saying, “Come on” several times. One of the men in the parking lot tried to hold Ms. Weatherbee back. She punched him, got free. Another man tried to intercept Ms. Weatherbee. She fought him off as well. During this time, she was saying to the men, “What did I do to you? Run.”

5After Ms. Weatherbee got past the second man, she went toward Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards told Ms. Weatherbee, “I’ll stab you.” She also said, “You are bad. Do something, just do something.” She said “just do something” five times in total. Ms. Edwards said that she feared for her life. She agreed that if she had got in her car and turned it on, the people in the parking lot would have moved out of the way; however, Ms. Edwards stated that she was standing in the parking lot defending herself. She did not get in her car. After Ms. Weatherbee got past the second man, Ms. Edwards showed Ms. Weatherbee the knife. She wanted her to back off. She told Ms. Weatherbee to stay away.

6When Ms. Weatherbee came at Ms. Edwards, she stabbed her. Ms. Weatherbee backed off a bit but came at her again. Ms. Edwards stabbed her again. Ms. Weatherbee came back a third time. She was stabbed again. Ms. Weatherbee backed off after the third time. During all of this, Ms. Edwards did not take a step toward Ms. Weatherbee.

7Ms. Edwards could have avoided the incident. She agreed that could have got in her car and locked the doors. People were standing near her car but she could have driven away. The jury rejected Ms. Edwards’ position that she acted in self-defence.

8Ms. Weatherbee sustained significant injuries from the stabbing. The multiple stabbings amounted to aggravated assault. She was airlifted to the hospital in critical condition and required surgery.

Ms. Edwards circumstances

9There was no Morris report, which I was told can take up to two years to complete. Similarly, there was no pre-sentence report. Defence counsel provided the following information regarding Ms. Edwards’ circumstances.

10Ms. Edwards is a 41 year old Black woman. Both of her parents were Jamaican immigrants. There were no addictions nor violence in her family. She grew up in a violent neighbourhood in Toronto. When she was 8 years old, in grade 2, the family moved to a different but similar neighbourhood. Her father left. Her mother had a relationship with another man who drank. This led to chaos and violence with all of the family members.

11When Ms. Edwards was 14, her mother, who was her main support, passed away due to an aneurysm. She and her brother went to live with their father, again in a bad neighbourhood. When Ms. Edwards was in grade 10, the family was evicted. They moved to yet another bad neighbourhood. Racism hampered her father’s ability to find employment.

12At some point, Ms. Edwards moved into a rooming house. She travelled across the city to attend high school. Much to her credit, she graduated with honours.

13She moved into an apartment with her bother in the same building where her father lived. He had a new family on a different floor. He helped to pay her rent but she had to pay for food for herself and her brother.

14Ms. Edwards was molested by an uncle which she reported to her father. The uncle was subsequently convicted. At some point, Ms. Edwards began to carry a knife.

15Ms. Edwards worked as a cashier at Canadian Tire. After that, she worked at the Boys and Girls Club in Toronto where she was able to run basketball clinics because she was good at the sport.

16Subsequently, Ms. Edwards moved to Barrie. She could not find a job “facing the public”. She attributed this to racism. She could find only a job in construction. She worked in construction for seven years. She had been employed at the bar for only a few months before the incident with Ms. Weatherbee occurred.

17A number of support letters were provided for Ms. Edwards. The one from Jamie Herring, an employee of the City of Toronto, Parks & Recreation Division dated October 9, 2025 provided some information relating to Ms. Edwards’ community service activities and some insight regarding her character. He stated,

I have known Sherese for approximately two years, and in that time, she has become not only a friend but also a respected figure within our neighbourhood. Despite the hardships she has faced as a 41-year-old Black woman navigating life in one of Toronto’s toughest areas, Sherese has demonstrated tremendous strength, compassion, and leadership. Life in Moss Park can be extremely difficult — it’s a community often labeled and overlooked — yet Sherese has risen above those challenges to make a positive impact on the people around her.

Sherese has helped organize community barbecues and basketball tournaments alongside me, including creating and promoting an all-women’s division to give local women and girls a chance to shine through sport. Her efforts have not only encouraged community engagement but also built pride and connection among residents who often feel forgotten.

Beyond community events, Sherese has shown genuine compassion for others. She has cooked meals for the less fortunate, provided clothing to those in need, and offered emotional support to individuals struggling with homelessness and addiction. Personally, when I underwent ACL reconstruction surgery in November 2024, Sherese was there for me without hesitation — cooking, cleaning, and helping me recover when I had no one else to rely on. She asked for nothing in return.

Sherese’s story reflects the resilience of many Black women who endure hardship yet continue to give, uplift, and serve others. Her actions prove her strong character and her value to this community. She is not someone who should be discarded by the system but someone who deserves understanding, support, and rehabilitation.

Legal Parameters

18Section 268 of the Criminal Code states that everyone who commits an aggravated assault is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

The Crown’s Position

19The Crown requests four years of incarceration less a credit of 22 days for pre-sentence custody.

20Ms. Edwards has a criminal record. She has two convictions from 2014 for failure to comply. In 2016, she was convicted of possession of a Schedule 1 substance. This is her first conviction for a violent offence.

21There was no history of animosity or any physical contact between Ms. Edwards and Ms. Weatherbee before the event. Alcohol was not involved on Ms. Edwards’ part.

22The Crown states that the event was not a scuffle. Ms. Edwards language before the assault was antagonizing. She was encouraging Ms. Weatherbee to do something. Ms. Weatherbee was advancing toward Ms. Edwards in a threatening manner; however, Ms. Edwards did not get into her vehicle to avoid her. She decided to remain engaged in the situation. The jury rejected her defence of self-defence. Ms. Edwards had a clear intent to cause serious bodily harm. She used excessive force that could have had a catastrophic result. There was no physical harm until Ms. Edwards’ knife pierced Ms. Weatherbee’s abdomen. There were five stab wounds, three of which were serious. After the altercation, Ms. Edwards drove home and went to bed.

23Ms. Weatherbee was airlifted to hospital in critical condition. She survived because she had diaphragm repair surgery. She was in the hospital for five days and then suffered from long-lasting trauma. She did not testify at trial; however, at the preliminary hearing she stated that she thought she was going to die. She almost did. She had staples in her chest. The event has caused her physical and mental trauma.

24After Ms. Edwards was arrested, she was released on an undertaking to her father on house arrest. Her bail was subsequently varied. From July 26, 2024 to present, her only restriction has been to not have contact with Ms. Weatherbee. The Crown states that a Downs credit could only be considered for the time that she was on house arrest, one and a half years. It had little impact on her liberty. She could go out with her surety and was able to work. This should be given little weight.

25The Crown refers to R. v. Tourville 2011 ONSC 1677, [2011] O.J. No. 1245 an assault which occurred outside of a bar. The trial judge set out the two different versions of the event. According to the Crown, Mr. Tourville, who is Aboriginal, carried out an unprovoked knife attack on a person who was trying to stop him from abusing his ex-girlfriend and her mother. The defence stated that it was a consensual fight. Mr. Tourville was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The court had a Gladue report. It considered a wide range of sentencing cases and stated,

28. In the mid-range are cases where high reformatory sentences have been imposed of between eighteen months and two years less a day. These cases generally involve first offenders and generally contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused as resorted to excessive force. See: R. v. Chickekoo (2008), 79 W.C.B. (2d) 66 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Moreira, 2006 9709 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 1248 (S.C.J.); R. v. Basilio (2003), 2003 15531 (ON CA), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 440 (Ont.C.A.).

29. All three of the above cases were arguably worse offences or worse offenders than the case at bar. In Chickekoo, supra, the Aboriginal accused came from a similar background to Mr. Tourville but had a prior criminal record, including a conviction for assault. He caused "severe, life-threatening and permanently disfiguring" injuries to the head and face of the victim as a result of assaults with a broken beer bottle during a fight. In Moreira, supra, the accused was the aggressor who followed the victim on a public street in Toronto, provoking a consent fight. During the fight, the accused pulled out a knife and slashed the victim. He was in possession of the concealed knife for the dangerous purpose of using it in a fight and he was convicted of these further possessory offences, in addition to aggravated assault. He was a nineteen year old, a first offender at the time of the offences but had gone on to commit a number of further offences while on bail for which he received jail sentences. In Basilio, supra, as in Moreira, the accused was convicted of being in unlawful possession of a knife for a dangerous purpose, in addition to aggravated assault as a result of using the knife in a fight outside a bar. He stabbed the victim from behind, causing "life-threatening injuries" to the chest, diaphragm and liver. The accused did not retreat from the fight but swaggered about afterwards waving the knife. It should be noted that the Court of Appeal described the two years less a day sentence in Basilio as "lenient" and the eighteen month sentence in Chickekoo as "the lower end" of the appropriate range.

30. At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve “unprovoked” or “premeditated” assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence. See: R. v. Scott, [2002] O.J. No. 1210 (C.A.); R. v. Thompson, [2005] O.J. No. 1033 (C.A.); R. v. Vickerson (2005), 2005 23678 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 165 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Pakul, [2008] O.J. No. 1198 (C.A) 31

26The Crown also referred to R. v. Fortune [2024] O.J. No. 1600. In this case the victim kicked the offender in the head. The offender then chased the victim and stabbed him five times. At the time, the offender was on probation and prohibited from possessing weapons. This was his third offence for nearly identical conduct. The victim sustained life-threatening injuries. The offender was convicted of aggravated assault. The trial judge imposed a sentence of two years which was varied on appeal to three years and six months.

27In R. v. Imam [2022] O.J. No. 3913, the offender was sentenced for aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. The offender, who was intoxicated, and the victim had an altercation outside of a shopping mall. The offender pursued the victim into the mall and repeatedly stabbed him with a knife. He had no criminal record. His conduct was out of character. The offender was sentenced to five years in custody for the aggravated assault, given the serious nature of the offence.

28The Crown states that a conditional sentence would be unfit. It would not sufficiently denounce nor deter the conduct, nor would it take into account the seriousness of the injuries. The high range is four to six years. Here, the low end of that, four years less the 22 day credit, would be appropriate.

The Defence’s Position

29The defence states that 18 months or two years less a day would be appropriate. The defence referred to a number of cases. I will not review all of them. There is no decision in which the offender never made a move toward the victim, in other words, just stood there while the victim rushed toward her. Ms. Weatherbee was not trying to defend herself. Rather, she came at Ms. Edwards in an aggressive manner. Ms. Edwards told her in advance that she had a knife. As soon as Ms. Weatherbee withdrew from Ms. Edwards, the incident ended. Ms. Edwards did not chase her.

30R. v. Veenhof, 2011 ONCA 19,5 concerned assault with a weapon. Some uninvited people came to a house party. The offender was the instigator. He broke a beer bottle over one victim’s head, causing a wound necessitating six stitches. He then retrieved a sword and struck the other victim in the back causing a wound necessitating 26 stitches. The trial judge sentenced the offender to a six month conditional sentence, which included 120 hours of community service and a curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., together with 12 months’ probation.

31On appeal, in para. 4, the court stated that

…it was open to the sentencing judge to impose a conditional sentence because of the respondent’s youth, lack of a prior record, his expression of remorse, his bright prospects and the fact that his conduct on the evening in question was apparently out of character. Nevertheless, the duration and terms of the conditional sentence imposed were wholly inadequate to address the sentencing goals of denunciation and general deterrence for these very serious offences.

32The court set aside the conditional sentence imposed, substituted a conditional sentence of 2 years less 7 days taking account presentence custody and gave 10 months’ credit for time served, resulting in a conditional sentence of 14 months less 7 days.

33R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, concerned two brothers. The younger one was assaulted. The brothers found the assailant and assaulted him. In para. 13, the court stated that a conditional sentence is available for the offence of aggravated assault. The trial judge imposed a custodial sentence of 15 months, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders.

34On appeal, the court stated,

27. First, the level of violence involved in this aggravated assault did not automatically exclude an appropriately crafted conditional sentence. Case law establishes that a conditional sentence can provide deterrence and denunciation, and thus may be appropriate for a crime involving violence, such as aggravated assault, even when deterrence and denunciation are paramount considerations. Conditional sentences have been found appropriate in cases when similar, or more extreme, violence has been present compared to what occurred here.

28. Second, given that a conditional sentence may be appropriate in a case involving violence, and in which it is necessary for the sentence to address denunciation and deterrence, a sentencing judge should determine whether one is appropriate by considering, and weighing, the ability of a conditional sentence to meet the deterrence and denunciation objectives and other relevant sentencing objectives, including restraint and rehabilitation. Here, the trial judge properly identified restraint in her general description of sentencing principles, and identified rehabilitation as an important sentencing goal for these appellants, but failed to consider them in relation to whether a custodial or conditional sentence was appropriate. The trial judge should have considered whether a custodial sentence or one served in the community would better address all of the relevant sentencing objectives − denunciation and deterrence and restraint and rehabilitation.

35The court considered R. v. Johnson [2005] O.J. No. 1762, in which the accused sought out the victims − two brothers with whom the accused had previously fought, hit one of them in the head with a golf club, fracturing his skull and R. v. Nguyen, 2021 ONCJ 512, in which the victim suffered a broken jaw in two places, a concussion, and cuts and bruises to his face and body. His injuries required the insertion of eight screws and two metal plates into his jaw.

36It must be noted that in both Johnson and Nguyen, the accuseds pleaded guilty. The court went on to state,

38. These examples do not suggest that a conditional sentence will always be appropriate for a case with this level of violence. But they do suggest, consistently with Proulx and Sharma, that this level of violence does not provide a bright line making conditional sentences per se unavailable. It was an error in principle for the trial judge to rule out a conditional sentence based on the level of violence in this case without considering the extent to which a conditional sentence could provide deterrence and denunciation, especially if punitive conditions were imposed, and without weighing all of the relevant sentencing objectives that were applicable in the factual circumstances.

37The defence referred to R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, a decision of the Court of Appeal, which involved weapons charges against a Black offender. In para. 13, the court stated that,

Social context evidence relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing as described in s. 718;

The gravity or seriousness of an offence is determined by it normative wrongfulness and the harm posed or caused by that conduct in the circumstances in which the conduct occurred. Accordingly, unlike when assessing the offender’s degree of personal responsibility, an offender’s experience with anti-Black racism does not impact on the seriousness or gravity of the offence;

Courts may acquire relevant social context evidence through the proper application of judicial notice or as social context evidence describing the existence, causes and impact of anti-Black racism in Canadian society, and the specific effect of anti-Black racism on the offender;

Consistent with the rules of admissibility, a generous gateway for the admission of objective and balanced social context evidence should be provided.

38In para. 50, the court stated that there must be some link between anti-Black racism and how it affects the offender.

Mitigating Factors

39Section 718.2(a) of the Code states that a sentence should be reduced or increased for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances

40Ms. Edwards had a difficult childhood. Her mother, who was her best support, died when Ms. Edwards was young. She suffered from PTSD. The family moved several times from one dangerous neighbourhood to another. This created instability for Ms. Edwards. She has been assaulted and robbed on a number of occasions. As a result, she began to carry a knife. Her father was helpful with rent but was absent for periods of time and then began a new family. As a high school student, Ms. Edwards looked after her younger brother in a separate apartment.

41Ms. Edwards has excellent rehabilitation prospects. Her community service and charitable work are evidence of this. She did a construction course on finishing skills and was the only woman in the class. She would do well in post-secondary education if she had the financial resources for it.

Aggravating Factors

42Ms. Weatherbee was in critical condition from the stab wounds. Ms. Edwards could have avoided the incident by getting into her car which was right beside her.

Principles of Sentencing

43The fundamental principles and purposes to be considered by courts in sentencing are set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

44Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

45As set out in s. 718, the objectives of sentencing include: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence of the offender and others from committing further offences; separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; reparation for harm done; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, including acknowledgment of the harm done.

46Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code speaks to the overarching principle of sentencing, namely that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

47In its discussion of proportionality, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23, at para. 50, that “sentencing must in all circumstances be guided by the cardinal principle of proportionality. The sentence must be severe enough to denounce the offence but must not exceed ‘what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence”.

48Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out a number of specific principles that a court must consider when imposing sentence, including:

a. the principle that a sentence should be increased or reduced to take account of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances the court finds to exist in respect of the matter before it;

b. the parity principle, which requires that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances;

c. the restraint principle, which requires that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if a less restrictive sanction is appropriate; and

d. the principle that all available sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered if they are reasonable and consistent with the harm done to the victim and the community.

49Rehabilitation and restraint are also relevant considerations.

50Finally, the Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 13, recognized that an accused’s moral responsibility may be impacted by race and systemic discrimination: Social context evidence relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing as described in s. 718.

51The Court of Appeal made it clear, at para. 97, that there must be some link between anti-Black racism and how it affects the offender: Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offender’s colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount.

Analysis

52While Ms. Edwards has a criminal record, it is very dated. The last offence was 10 years ago. There is no conviction for a violent offence. The cases presented to me involve aggressive offenders who attacked victims. Here, the situation is unusual because Ms. Weatherbee came at Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards did not take a step toward her; however, she was yelling out antagonizing language.

53As noted above, in Tourville, the court stated,

At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve “unprovoked” or “premeditated” assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence.

54Ms. Edwards is not a recidivist with a serious criminal record. Ms. Weatherbee and Ms. Edwards did not have any history. Ms. Weatherbee was initially angry with Kayla and came out of the bar to find her. The incident with Ms. Weatherbee was not a premeditated assault, although had Ms. Edwards not shouted out what she did, the altercation might not have happened. A four year sentence would not be appropriate.

55I accept that Ms. Edwards has been affected by Black racism. It affected her family when she lived at home. It has affected her personally. She began carrying a knife when she lived in bad neighbourhoods in Toronto. She stated that she carried it when she worked at the bar because sometimes she had to close it.

56The fact that she graduated from high school with honours in very difficult circumstances is a testament to her intellect and perseverance. Her community service work post-offence shows compassion and generosity. Her prospects for rehabilitation are very good.

Sentence

57Although Ms. Edwards has been affected by racism, it does not warrant a reduction in sentence. Ms. Edwards should not receive a sentence within the high range, even if it is at the low end. A reformatory sentence would also not be appropriate. After weighing the seriousness of the injuries and sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation, I conclude that an appropriate sentence is three years less the 22 day credit. This amounts to 2 years and 343 days.

58Ms. Edwards shall not communicate with Ms. Weatherbee while she is in custody.

59Ms. Edwards shall provide a sample of her DNA to be completed by 1 p.m. today.

60Ms. Edwards is prohibited from possessing firearms for life.

VALLEE J.

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written Ruling is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. If there are any discrepancies between the oral and written versions, the official written Ruling is to be relied upon.