R. v. Kaptur, 2026 ONSC 95

Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Kaptur, 2026 ONSC 95 COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-500000290-0000 DATE: 20260109

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – LESZLEK KAPTUR

Counsel: Sandra Duffey for the Crown Mr. Kaptur, self-represented Michael Czuma, amicus

HEARD: November 28, 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

SUBJECT TO ANY FURTHER ORDER BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AN ORDER PURSUANT TO S. 486.5 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING DIRECTING THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD DISCLOSE SUCH IDENTITY, INCLUDING THE NAMES OF OTHER CROWN WITNESSES, SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN ANY DOCUMENT OR BROADCAST IN ANY WAY.

R. MAXWELL J.

Overview

1On July 10, 2025, after a trial, I found Mr. Kaptur guilty of one count of unlawful confinement. Mr. Kaptur represented himself at the trial. My reasons for judgment were read out in full through a Polish interpreter. He was also provided with a copy of the written reasons for judgment on the trial. The sentencing hearing was adjourned for a pre-sentence report and a psychological assessment under s. 21 of the Mental Health Act.

2On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Duffey seeks a custodial sentence of seven months, on top of credit for pre-sentence custody (the equivalent of 27 days). She seeks a three-year probation order to follow as well as a DNA order and a weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for 10 years.

3In his capacity as amicus, Mr. Czuma suggests that, when the aggravating and mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration, the circumstances of the offender and the offence, the passing of sentence should be suspended, and Mr. Kaptur should be placed on probation.

4Mr. Kaptur takes the position that he should not be incarcerated. He submits that he has suffered by having his matter take three years to complete and the significant negative attention he received when he was charged.

5For the reasons that follow, Mr. Kaptur is sentenced to a custodial term of six months to be served in the community as a conditional sentence. The conditional sentence will be followed by a two-year probation order.

The Facts

6On the afternoon of April 5, 2022, Mr. Kaptur was riding a TTC bus headed to the Royal York subway station. The complainant boarded the bus a short time later. While on the bus, Mr. Kaptur fixated on the complainant and came to an unfounded conclusion that the complainant was acting strangely and trying to draw attention to herself. In reality, she was simply riding the bus.

7Mr. Kaptur and the complainant both got off the bus when it arrived at Royal York station. The complainant descended the stairs in the station to reach the subway platform. Mr. Kaptur followed her down the stairs. Once they reached the bottom of the stairs, Mr. Kaptur began to hold the complainant while she walked, wrapping his arms around her shoulders and body. He held her close as they walked and he asked her if she was “ok” and told her to come to his house multiple times. The complainant attempted to get away from Mr. Kaptur, turning her body from left to right in an attempt to free herself from his hold. I accepted that she was afraid.

8Mr. Kaptur took a few steps toward the eastbound platform, away from the westbound platform which the complainant was trying to access, before a bystander stepped in and intervened. The bystander led the complainant back up to street level. The interaction was brief, approximately 51 seconds.

9I concluded that although the Crown had not proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Kaptur took steps to take or move the complainant from one place to another, a requisite element of attempted kidnapping, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown had proven all of the elements of an unlawful confinement.

Victim Impact

10The offence had a significant impact on the complainant, as evidenced through her victim impact statement and the victim impact statement of her mother. Both the complainant and her mother filed comprehensive and detailed victim impact statements, outlining the day-to-day and longstanding impact the incident has had on the complainant’s life. I have considered their statements carefully and will only briefly summarize the content here.

11The complainant describes being constantly anxious and fearful, making it difficult for her to use the TTC. This has had a negative impact on her ability to attend school. She has struggled academically and experienced changes in her friendships with others since the incident. I accept that the incident has had a lasting and profound effect on her and that she genuinely believed that had the bystander not intervened, she could have been taken against her will.

12Her mother and father also expressed the significant impact the incident has had on their daughter and their hope that she can move forward from this incident.

Circumstances of the Offender

13Both the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report dated October 29, 2025 provide helpful background information about Mr. Kaptur.

14Mr. Kaptur was born in Poland and is currently 77 years old. His mother and siblings live in Poland. His father died a number of years ago. Mr. Kaptur got married in 1983 and has one daughter. Due to a difficult political situation in Poland, Mr. Kaptur migrated to Canada in 1986 as a landed immigrant. After he became a Canadian citizen, he sponsored his wife and daughter to join him in Canada. His relationship with his wife broke down and they eventually separated. He subsequently had two long-term relationships but is currently single. His relationship with his daughter has become strained as a result of the charges and the negative public scrutiny which resulted.

15Mr. Kaptur has a university education. While living in Poland, he co-owned a restaurant in the 1980s and worked in the entertainment industry, both in radio and television. He became gainfully employed when he moved to Canada, becoming a condominium manager. From 2003 to 2007, he lived in Chicago where he co-owned a private TV channel and worked with Polish politicians. In 2008, he returned to Toronto with the intention of retiring, however he continued working until 2010 as a driver and assistant to a wealthy Polish family. He remains actively involved in the Polish community. He currently receives a pension.

16A friend within the community, Mr. Goldyn, has known Mr. Kaptur for 20 years and described him as a kind person. He reported that Mr. Kaptur is actively involved in charitable initiatives within the Polish community and is a good person.

17Mr. Kaptur was treated for prostate cancer in 2014. He also suffers from hypertension and diabetes. The author of the psychiatric report, Dr. Benassi, noted that during the assessment, Mr. Kaptur expressed some paranoid thoughts, including suspicions that others were conspiring against him in relation to the allegations underlying the offence. He suggested others may have influenced the complainant in making her claim. He also expressed his view that the TTC surveillance footage may have been tampered with or artificially generated to incriminate him. He also speculated that he might be a target because of his historical ties to Polish political parties. Dr. Benassi concluded however that Mr. Kaptur’s beliefs did not appear to be “distinctly delusional in nature and were more consistent with overvalued ideas.” Dr. Benassi concluded that Mr. Kaptur does not show signs of psychotic symptoms.

18Although Mr. Kaptur denies the allegations, he expressed an apology to the complainant during the sentencing hearing for causing her to feel fearful. However, to the probation officer who authored the pre-sentence report, Mr. Kaptur stated that he believes the complainant is unbalanced and may have been under the influence of substances on the date in question.

Principles of Sentencing

19I begin with the most fundamental principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code.

20The overriding purpose of sentencing is to encourage respect for the law and the maintenance of a “just, peaceful and safe society”. As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58, the individualization of the sentencing process means that these objectives will not necessarily point to the same sentencing disposition. Sentencing judges need to prioritize and blend different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.

21Section 718.1 provides that the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence I impose must reflect the circumstances of the offence and the attributes of the individual responsible for the crime: see R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37.

22Section 718.2 directs that a court must take into consideration the principle that a sentence should be increased or reduced for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors related to the offence or the offender.

23All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders.

24In terms of the gravity of the offence, this was a serious offence. Mr. Kaptur fixated on, and then deliberately interfered with the complainant’s ability to move freely. Even when she resisted by physically pushing him away, he persisted. As I noted in my reasons for judgment, it was apparent, to the objective observer, that Mr. Kaptur’s conduct was inappropriate and caused the complainant noticeable distress, so much so that a bystander intervened. The seriousness is heightened by the fact that the complainant is a teenager. However, I also recognize that this offence lacks some of the features which would raise it to the higher end of seriousness. The confinement was brief. The entire incident took place in a public venue and not in an area where the complainant would have expected a higher degree of privacy and security, such as in her home. While there was some physical force exerted on the complainant to control her movement, it was not significant physical force and there was no overt violence, nor were there any weapons or threats used.

25Therefore, on the scale of seriousness, while the offence is serious, it lacks features which would place it at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness.

26With regard to Mr. Kaptur’s degree of moral responsibility, he bears significant moral responsibility for the offence. While I did not find that the Crown had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kaptur took steps to move the complainant from one place to another, I did find that his fixation on the complainant began on the bus and continued when the complainant entered the station. It should have been very apparent to Mr. Kaptur that it was not appropriate to make physical contact with the complainant, particularly a young person. He most certainly should have immediately let her go when it was apparent that she was uncomfortable with his contact when she attempted to move away from him. Therefore, even allowing for the possibility that Mr. Kaptur, in his own mind, felt he was trying to help the complainant, he has a high degree of moral blameworthiness in his decision to persist in holding the complainant and restricting her movements when her demeanor and body language clearly indicated that she wanted him to move away from her.

27In this case, there can be no question that the paramount principles which drive the sentence must be denunciation and deterrence, having regard for the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the complainant and the community’s sense of safety and security. Further, s. 718.01 of the Code provides that where the Court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a child, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

28Mr. Kaptur’s prospects for rehabilitation are also a consideration, as well as the principle of restraint, given that Mr. Kaptur is a first-time offender.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

29Turning to the aggravating factors in this case, under s. 718.2(a) (ii.1) of the Code, it is statutorily aggravating that Mr. Kaptur abused a person under the age of 18 years.

30It is also statutorily aggravating, under s. 718.2(a) (iii.1) that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering her age and other personal circumstances, including her health. As I have already outlined, the offence had a profound impact on the complainant’s sense of well-being and safety. She continues to experience the traumatic effect of the incident, which happened to her when she was only 14 years old.

31As the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras. 51-61, violence against children causes unique and profound emotional and psychological harm because children are still developing ways to protect themselves and cope with trauma and difficult situations. I consider the psychological impact that this incident had on the complainant to be a significant aggravating factor. She was vulnerable, not only because of her age, but because she as alone and she had an injury to her hand. Viewed objectively through the video evidence which was tendered on the trial, it is understandable that she felt targeted by Mr. Kaptur. As the complainant set out in her victim impact statement, the harm from the incident goes well beyond the brief time of confinement. Her relationships with others and her sense of safety and security continue to be disrupted by the incident.

32Turning to the mitigating factors, Mr. Kaptur is a 77-year old first time offender. He is entitled to restraint in sentencing.

33In terms of his personal circumstances, the evidence from the psychiatric assessment does not suggest a causal link between Mr. Kaptur’s actions and any mental health disorder, although he may subscribe to overvalued ideas. Further, it would appear that he has lived a pro-social life. He is actively involved in the Polish community and charities. He has complied with his bail for the past three years without incident. Through the author of the pre-sentence report, Mr. Kaptur expressed a willingness to comply with any counseling or community service hours imposed on him as part of this sentence.

34Finally, I note that while Mr. Kaptur’s apology to the complainant and her family during the sentencing hearing should be given some mitigating value, the value is attenuated by the fact that he made comments to the pre-sentence report author shifting the blame to the complainant for being “unbalanced” and influenced by others.

The Range of Sentence

35Ms. Duffey fairly points out that this is a difficult case, in that the circumstances are rather unique. It is difficult to find caselaw with similar facts to the case at bar. Ms. Duffey provided a number of cases, beginning with Friesen, the principles of which apply to non-sexual offences involving children: see R. v. Zaman 2025 ONSC 5789; R. v. J.B., [2024] O.J. No. 5512.

36Ms. Duffey also provided the decision in R. v. R.M. 2022 ONSC 6662 in which the trial judge sentenced the accused to 12 months in jail for assault and attempted abduction. While the conviction was quashed and the matter sent for a new trial, the Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that a fit sentence for unlawful confinement and assault, in the circumstances of that case, would have been 12 months. Ms. Duffey acknowledges that R.M. had certain aggravating features which are not present in this case, including that the accused grabbed a child and attempted to pull the child into a car. However, the Court of Appeal’s endorsement of the sentence provides some guidance.

37Ms. Duffey also provided the decision of R. v. Roberts 2017 ABPC 195, but the facts of Roberts are distinguishable. The victim in that case was an 11year old child who was severely beaten. The accused had a criminal record.

38Mr. Czuma as amicus provided two cases for consideration. In R. v. Adjei, 209 ONCA 486, [2019] O.J. No. 3070, the accused was found guilty of forcible confinement. However, in that case, the victim was an adult who was taken from his place of work by two men, confined to a car for an hour, and his family was contacted to extort money for his release. The accused was sentenced to 60 days in jail, to be served intermittently.

39In R. v. Van Santen, 1999 CarswellOnt 1277; [1999] O.J. No. 1576, the victim was again an adult who kept the school principal confined to an office while they discussed her child. The Summary Conviction Appeal Court would have substituted a conditional sentence for the custodial sentence imposed on the offender.

40Without any criticism intended toward counsel, none of the sentencing decisions are particularly useful, given the unique circumstances of this case.

41At the end of the day, Mr. Kaptur must be sentenced as an individual, with regard for his circumstances and the circumstances of the offence. Having balanced all of the mitigating and aggravating factors, the overall gravity of the offence, and the degree of responsibility of the offender, I am of the view that a further period of incarceration is necessary to meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The principle of restraint requires me to consider the least possible term of incarceration that will still meet the principles of sentencing. I am unable to accept Mr. Czuma’s suggestion that the passing of sentence be suspended, in light of Mr. Kaptur’s pre-trial custody. I am not satisfied that the time Mr. Kaptur has already served in pre-sentence custody is sufficient to meet the principles of sentence.

42The Crown’s position of seven months in custody is not unreasonable, having regard for the seriousness of the offence and the significant aggravating factors related to the age of the complainant and the impact of the offence on her. It is also a sentence which, in my view, meets the principles of denunciation and deterrence. I would however deduct Mr. Kaptur’s pre-sentence custody, a total of 27 days when his pre-sentence custody is calculated for enhanced credit, pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. I would also grant Mr. Kaptur some consideration for the lengthy period of time he spent on bail awaiting his trial, pursuant to R. v. Downes, (2006), 2006 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 33. This is a mitigating factor which must be considered in arriving at a fit sentence for Mr. Kaptur: see R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733; R. v. C.C. 2021 ONCA 600; at para. 4.

43In my view, after credit for pre-sentence custody and considering Mr. Kaptur’s time on bail as an additional mitigating factor, a fit sentence in this case is six months in custody.

44Given Mr. Kaptur’s age, his lack of a criminal record, and the fact that the sentence I will impose is below the two-year mark, I must give consideration to the imposition of a conditional sentence.

45The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2001] S.C.R. 61, at para. 79 and restated in R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, at para. 30, a conditional sentence, in addition to being more effective than incarceration in achieving goals of rehabilitation, is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence.

46Section 742.1(a) of the Code sets out two prerequisites for such a sentence. The first is that service of the sentence must not endanger the safety of the community. Although the circumstances of this offence create some concern for public safety, I am satisfied that, with appropriate conditions, the concerns for public safety are attenuated. Mr. Kaptur has no criminal record, has lived a pro-social life, and has support in the community. With counselling, as directed by a supervisor, for life skills and mental health, I am satisfied that he does not present an ongoing concern for public safety.

47The second prerequisite in s. 742.1(a) is that a conditional sentence must be “consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.”

48I have already touched on the fundamental principles of sentencing which apply to this case. Denunciation and deterrence, as well as protection of the public are of paramount concern. Rehabilitation is also a relevant consideration.

49On the issue of rehabilitation, as many courts have noted, the objective of rehabilitation, where there are good prospects for rehabilitation, can go further toward achieving the fundamental purposes of general and specific deterrence: see R. v. Nur, at paras. 113-114; Proulx, at para. 107.

50I have considered the matter carefully and I am satisfied that the term of custody I impose can be served in the community as a conditional sentence. I am satisfied, in the particular circumstances of this case, that it would be in the interests of justice, and would not endanger public safety, to allow Mr. Kaptur to serve his sentence in the community.

51Mr. Kaptur will therefore be sentenced to a conditional sentence of six months¹.

52The terms of the conditional sentence will be as follows:

• Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
• Appear before the Court when required to do so;
• Report to a supervisor within two business days of this order and thereafter as directed;
• Remain in the province of Ontario unless written permission to go outside the province is obtained from the court or the conditional sentence supervisor;
• Reside at an address approved by the conditional sentence supervisor;
• Notify the conditional sentence supervisor in advance of any change in address 48 hours in advance of any change;
• Take counseling as directed by and to the satisfaction of the conditional sentence supervisor, in particular for mental health and life skills;
• Sign releases for the conditional sentence supervisor to monitor your participation and progress in any counseling programs;
• For the first four months of your conditional sentence, remain in your place of residence at all times and not be outside the residence except:
  • to attend work or seek employment, the time, location and schedule for any such work to be provided to the conditional sentence supervisor in advance;
  • to attend counseling,
  • to attend scheduled medical appointments involving you or an immediate member of your family;
  • for medical emergencies involving you or an immediate member of your family;
  • to going to, from and while at church or religious services;
  • to shop for necessities of life for one three-hour period per week on a day of the week agreed to in writing by the conditional sentence supervisor, such written confirmation to be carried on his person at all times;
  • or as permitted in writing by the conditional sentence supervisor.
• Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Code;
• Have no contact directly or indirectly with the complainant or any member of her family; and
• Not be within 500 m of anywhere the complainant lives, works, goes to school, or is known to be.

53The conditional sentence order will be followed by a two-year probation order.

54The terms of the probation order will be:

• Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
• Appear before the Court when required to do so;
• Report to a probation officer within 2 business days of this order and thereafter as directed;
• Remain in the province of Ontario unless written permission to go outside the province is obtained from the court or the probation officer;
• Reside at an address approved by the probation officer;
• Notify the probation officer in advance of any change in address 48 hours in advance of any change;
• Take counseling as directed by and to the satisfaction of the probation officer, in particular for mental health and life skills;
• Sign releases for the probation officer to monitor your participation and progress in any counseling programs;
• Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Code;
• Have no contact with directly or indirectly the complainant or any member of her family;
• Not be within 500 m of anywhere the complainant lives, works, goes to school, or is known to be.

55I make an order under s. 109 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Kaptur from possessing any firearms, cross-bows, restricted weapons, ammunition, or explosive devices for 10 years.

56There will also be an order under s. 487.051 of the Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. The offence is a primary designated offence.

57I thank Ms. Duffey and Mr. Czuma for their assistance in this matter.

R. Maxwell J.

Released: January 9, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Kaptur, 2026 ONSC 95

Footnotes

1. 1Pre-sentence custody of the equivalent of 27 days will be noted on the Indictment.