2026 ONSC 2773  •  Ontario Superior Court of Justice  •  A. Doyle J.

Heard: May 5, 2026  •  Judgment: May 12, 2026

Subjects: Pre-Sentence Report (PSR)  •  s. 721 Criminal Code  •  Sentencing  •  Fairness

→ Result Application granted. The PSR was struck in its entirety. A new PSR was ordered, to be prepared by a different probation officer, with detailed judicial directions on permissible scope.

Background

Marcel Desormeaux pleaded guilty on December 8, 2025, based on an agreed statement of facts (ASF). A pre-sentence report was ordered under s. 721 of the Criminal Code. Defence counsel, Jolene Hansell, subsequently challenged the PSR on the grounds that it was unfair, partial, and unreliable. The Crown’s position was that deficiencies could be remedied through redaction and supplementation by the original author.

Justice Doyle granted the defence application in its entirety and ordered a fresh PSR by a different probation officer.

Why This Case Matters for Defence Counsel

PSRs are consequential documents. They do not simply gather dust on a court file. As Justice Trotter noted in R. v. Aleksev (cited in Desormeaux), correctional and parole authorities rely on the information and opinions expressed in a PSR when making assessments of an offender throughout their sentence. A biased or incomplete PSR can follow your client through the correctional system long after sentencing ends.

Desormeaux is the clearest Ontario articulation to date of when and how defence counsel can successfully move to have a defective PSR struck and replaced. It consolidates the governing principles from Junkert, Carrera-Vega, Aleksev, Rodriguez-Lecky, and Breton into a coherent framework for making this type of application.

The Governing Legal Framework

Section 721 of the Criminal Code requires a PSR to be prepared impartially, on a proper evidentiary foundation, in a manner that is fair to the offender and useful to the sentencing judge. The report’s function is to assist the court by providing objective, balanced, and reliable background information about the offender, including personal circumstances, rehabilitative prospects, and suitability for community-based options.

As O’Connor A.C.J.O. confirmed in R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549, at para. 59, a PSR must be “an accurate, independent and balanced assessment of an offender, his background and his prospects for the future.” It is not an evidentiary record of the offence and it is not a forum to test or expand upon disputed or unproven allegations.

The court identified two remedies available when a PSR fails to meet the standard:

• Strike the PSR and order a fresh one prepared by a different probation officer; or
• Ignore the inappropriate portions.

Which remedy applies depends on whether the deficiencies are technical (remediable by redaction or supplementation) or structural (going to the fundamental reliability and impartiality of the report). In Desormeaux, the deficiencies were structural and striking was the only appropriate remedy.

The Deficiencies: What Went Wrong

Justice Doyle identified five categories of cumulative failure that, together, made the PSR irredeemably unfair:

1. Over-reliance on Unproven Police Allegations

Approximately two full pages of a 5.5-page PSR were devoted to a recitation of allegations drawn from a police synopsis. These allegations had not been proven, had not been admitted by the accused, and were inconsistent with the ASF. The probation officer had not even been provided with the ASF. This created the appearance that the probation officer had adopted an aggravating narrative unsupported by the facts underlying the conviction.

2. Improper Inquiry into the Offence

The probation officer questioned Mr. Desormeaux about “what happened” despite the existence of an agreed statement of facts. This is expressly cautioned against in the caselaw. Questioning an accused about the facts of the offence in the PSR interview risks unfairly penalizing the offender for declining to admit unproven conduct.

3. Inappropriate Contact with Victim-Related Parties

The probation officer interviewed the complainant’s mother and incorporated that emotionally charged material into the PSR. Victim input is obtained through a victim impact statement under s. 722 of the Criminal Code. A PSR is not the appropriate forum for expressions of views by those impacted by the offence. Its inclusion here shifted the PSR from an offender-centred assessment toward offence-driven condemnation.

4. Failure to Gather Proper Collateral Information

The probation officer did not speak with relevant collateral contacts and did not obtain or review significant background material, including employment history, personal references, or medical documentation. Although Mr. Desormeaux was retired, his work history was treated summarily without acknowledgment of positive contributions. Defence had identified collateral sources; they were not contacted.

5. Inadequate Accommodation for Medical and Communication Limitations

Mr. Desormeaux has Parkinson’s disease and documented communication difficulties. The PSR noted he was “soft-spoken” but made no meaningful effort to accommodate these limitations, even though his spouse was present and available to assist. No attempt was made to obtain medical records, consult treating physicians, or assess what accommodations could be made in custody or in the community. On these facts, the court held that accommodation was not optional, it was required.

6. Premature and Unsupported Conclusions

Without a comprehensive assessment, the probation officer concluded that Mr. Desormeaux was unsuitable for community supervision and lacked rehabilitative potential. These conclusions appeared to flow largely from the officer’s view that the accused was not being truthful because his account did not align with the police synopsis.

Why Redaction and Supplementation Were Refused

The Crown argued the appropriate remedy was to delete the offending paragraphs and direct the original author to gather the missing collateral information after reviewing the ASF. Justice Doyle rejected this:

• The original author had already been exposed to the police CPIC verification, police occurrence report, and victim’s family. That information could not be “unread.” It had demonstrably influenced her conclusions.
• The proper test is not whether the probation officer acted with actual bias or bad faith (the court expressly found she had not). The test is whether a reasonable, informed observer would have a concern that the report reflects a closed or settled view based on incomplete and improper information. That test was met.
• It is preferable for correctional, parole, and probation authorities to have a complete and fair PSR, rather than having to reconcile a primary report with supplementary defence materials.

The deficiencies were foundational and structural. Only a fresh PSR could restore confidence in the impartiality and reliability of the assessment.

The Order: Direction to the New Author

Justice Doyle’s order is a useful template for defence counsel. The new PSR author was directed to:

• Rely only on the facts underlying the conviction and the ASF;
• Not refer to any police materials (occurrence reports, CPIC, synopses);
• Not interview the complainant or the complainant’s family;
• Ensure appropriate accommodations for Mr. Desormeaux’s speech and communication difficulties to permit a full interview;
• Address employment and volunteer history, including any accolades;
• Consider time on bail and bail compliance in assessing suitability for community supervision;
• Obtain collateral information and address how probation and parole services will meet any duty to accommodate;
• Focus on personal circumstances, health, background, and rehabilitative prospects;
• Avoid a detailed narrative of the offence and any material properly belonging in a victim impact statement.

Counsel litigating a PSR challenge should consider whether these or similar directions can be sought in the application itself.

Defence Checklist: Reviewing a PSR for Challengeable Deficiencies

When you receive a PSR, review it systematically for the following:

Red Flags in a PSR • Police synopsis or occurrence report material reproduced verbatim or near-verbatim • Allegations inconsistent with or broader than the ASF or plea basis • The accused questioned about the facts of the offence during the interview • Victim, complainant, or victim’s family interviewed or their views incorporated • Collateral contacts your client identified not contacted • Employment, education, volunteer, or community contributions ignored or minimized • Medical, mental health, or disability issues noted but not meaningfully addressed • Conclusions about rehabilitative potential unsupported by the gathered information • Author appears to have adopted police or Crown’s version of contested facts • Officer in charge’s sentencing views included • PSR contains opinions on aggravating factors or appropriate weight for denunciation

If you identify one or more of these issues, consider:

• Whether to move to strike the PSR in its entirety or seek targeted redaction;
• Whether structural deficiencies (improper exposure, settled view) require a new author;
• Whether to seek specific judicial directions to the new author in the order;
• Whether to request that the original PSR be sealed from correctional and parole authorities (Aleksev remedy);
• Whether to provide letters of support, a defence-prepared social history, or medical documentation as supplementary material even where a new PSR is ordered.

Key Cases Cited

R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549 — foundational ONCA statement: PSR must be “accurate, independent and balanced.”

R. v. Carrera-Vega, 2015 ONSC 4958 (Fairburn J.) — PSRs cross the line when they focus on the officer’s views of the offence or offender to the exclusion of other information.

R. v. Aleksev, 2016 ONSC 6080 (Trotter J.) — PSR is not a forum for views of those impacted by the offence; sets out the two remedial options; sealing order for original PSR.

R. v. Rodriguez-Lecky, 2025 ONSC 6443 (London-Weinstein J.) — failure to contact collateral sources and failure to provide information on rehabilitative potential warrants a further PSR.

R. v. Breton, 2025 ONSC 4477 (London-Weinstein J.) — victim’s family input does not belong in a PSR; victim impact statement is the proper forum.

R. v. Green, 2006 ONCJ 364 (Trotter J.) — police view of the matter struck from PSR; foundational statement that PSR should not contain investigator’s impressions of the offence.

Bottom Line for Defence Counsel A PSR is not a Crown sentencing brief. Its function is an objective, offender-centred assessment of background, character, and rehabilitative potential. When a probation officer crosses the line — by importing unproven police allegations, incorporating victim advocacy, or drawing unsupported conclusions — defence counsel has both the grounds and the tools to challenge it. Desormeaux shows that courts will grant structural relief, including a new author and specific directions, where the integrity of the report is fundamentally compromised. Move early, document the deficiencies carefully, and frame the application around the standard a reasonable, informed observer would apply.