In a recent decision out of the Ontario Court of Justice, Justice Weinstein confronted a case that, on its surface, involved a single ugly outburst on a downtown Toronto street – but in its reasoning, became a broader meditation on how the justice system should respond to the normalization of racism in Canadian public life.
Justice Weinstein wrote:
“Canadian society is premised on respect for diversity and equality. Multiculturalism is not merely aspirational. It is a defining feature of our constitutional and social fabric. Mr. MacDonald’s conduct strikes at these core values. It conveys that individuals may be targeted for intimidation because of who they are, a message fundamentally incompatible with the guarantees of equality and dignity that underpin Canadian law. In these circumstances, denunciation and deterrence must be the primary sentencing objectives. Such conduct, if left unchecked, erodes the sense of shared citizenship essential to a functioning and inclusive society and fosters division and mistrust.
The need for a clear message is heightened in the current climate. There has been a troubling increase in overt expressions of intolerance and hate within our community. Freedom of expression does not extend to threats of violence or to dehumanizing conduct directed at others. If not met with a firm response, racist threats risk becoming normalized. Any sentence that is imposed must therefore both hold the offender accountable and affirm that such conduct will attract meaningful consequences.
This offence must also be understood in its broader social context. Racism directed at minority communities generates well‑founded concern and heightened vulnerability. Racially motivated threats carry impacts beyond the immediate victims, contributing to fear within the wider community. A fit sentence must meaningfully denounce this harm and reaffirm that all members of society are entitled to live free from intimidation and fear.”
The facts on this case were straightforward, yet disturbing. As Lily Vu and her partner James Crowley walked along Yonge Street, Mr. MacDonald, seated on an e-bicycle, hurled a racial slur: “Kill all the Chinks”. When Ms. Vu began recording him, he didn’t back down – he doubled down, repeating the slur, invoking tired tropes about immigration, and threatening to destroy her phone. There was no provocation, no de-escalation, and when confronted, an escalation ensued rather than a retreat.
What distinguishes this judgment is the way Justice Weinstein refused to treat the harm as contained to the two people standing on the sidewalk that day. The court accepted a community impact statement from the National Council of Asian Canadians, and used it to paint a wider picture: a community in which large numbers of people report being treated with disrespect, altering their daily routines to avoid confrontation, and feeling that they are not regarded as fully Canadian regardless of citizenship or generation.
This let the judge draw a careful but important distinction – Mr. MacDonald wasn’t being punished for the sins of every racist in the country, but his individual act didn’t exist in a vacuum either. It landed inside, and reinforced, a climate of fear that already existed. The judgment is explicit that he “bears some responsibility for contributing to” that broader harm, even though he didn’t create it alone.
Rather than treating this as an isolated incident, Justice Weinstein situated the case alongside other recent Ontario decisions. In R. v. Akbari, 2025 ONCJ 398, the accused was convicted after trial of uttering threats. The offences arose from statements made in which the accused expressed deeply anti‑semitic views and threatened to plant bombs in synagogues and kill as many Jewish people as possible. The judge found that the threats were clearly motivated by hate and had a significant impact on the Jewish community. The accused received a sixty‑day conditional sentence followed by three years’ probation. In R. v. Hennesy, 2021 ONCJ 263, the accused pleaded guilty to assaulting a Chinese student on a bus and uttering various racist and derogatory statements at the victim. The accused received a four-month conditional sentence.
Justice Weinstein stated that hate crimes against any of the many communities making up Canada must stop, and that courts can help by ensuring sentences actually reflect denunciation and deterrence. He stated:
“The broader picture that emerges from this statement is one of a community experiencing persistent and widespread harm arising from discrimination and hostility. The statistics reveal that these are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of behaviour that has meaningfully altered how many Asian Canadians experience their daily lives.”
The court relied upon section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code which makes hatred-motivated offences statutorily aggravating at sentencing. Justice Weinstein ordered Mr. MacDonald to six months of imprisonment, eighteen months’ probation with conditions including racial sensitivity training, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.
The opening paragraph of the judgment set the tone for all Canadians:
“Overt expressions of racism are becoming an increasingly visible and deeply troubling feature in our community. Conduct that may once have been less obvious has become normalized, contributing to growing fear and insecurity among minority groups. This case demonstrates how such attitudes can manifest into criminal behaviour. It underscores that words matter and can cause real harm. It also illustrates the role the Court must play in responding in a manner that clearly repudiates racially motivated conduct and affirms the fundamental values of equality, dignity, and mutual respect that underpin our society.”
This article was recently published in LexisNexis’ LAW360 at https://www.law360.ca/ca/family/articles/
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, Acc.D.C., is a full-time Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: