Sentencing in Anti-Asian Hate-Motivated Threatening Case
- Mark Sandler
- 4 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 4 hours ago
"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.” –Justice Seth Weinstein in R. v. MacDonald, 2026 ONCJ 332, para.1
On June 8, 2026, Justice Weinstein of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Jason MacDonald, 45, to a six-month jail sentence followed by 18 months probation. MacDonald had entered a guilty plea to making unprovoked threats to an Asian couple as they were walking down a busy street near their home in downtown Toronto. The court rejected the defence’s submission that a conditional sentence (house arrest) was sufficient to meet the applicable principles of sentence.
The Facts
On June 11, 2024, the victims, Lily Vu and her partner, James Crowley, were walking on Yonge Street. As they passed Mr. MacDonald sitting on an e-bicycle, he said “Kill all the Chinks." Ms. Vu began recording Mr. MacDonald on her phone and challenged him about the threat. In response, Mr. MacDonald said that his comments were an exercise of freedom of speech and repeated the slur several times. He continued making derogatory remarks, including statements about Ms. Vu’s ancestors coming here because of the “white man.” He also threatened to throw Ms. Vu’s phone to the ground.
Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley each filed victim impact statements detailing the harm caused by the offence and the effect it has had on their sense of safety. Ms. Vu described feeling unsafe and emotionally distressed following the incident. She no longer felt comfortable walking alone and, as a result, has moved away from the area. She noted that this experience was particularly troubling in light of the rise of anti-Asian incidents in recent years. Mr. Crowley stated that the incident negatively affected his emotional well-being and sense of security. He has experienced heightened anxiety and no longer feels safe in his own neighbourhood.
The impact on the Canadian Asian community was captured in a community impact statement provided by the National Council of Asian Canadians. The community is experiencing persistent and widespread harm arising from discrimination and hostility. The court found that the crime here was not an isolated incident but represented “a pattern of behaviour that has meaningfully altered how many Asian Canadians experience their daily lives.”
Reasons for Sentencing
Justice Weinstein’s reasons for sentence represent a model for how sentencing courts should take into consideration bias, prejudice or hate motivation, regardless of the community affected. I can do no better than to reproduce some of the important passages of the decision:
[17] … it is clear why Mr. MacDonald’s threats caused such acute anxiety for Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley and resonated more broadly within the Asian community. His conduct reinforced an existing sense of fear and insecurity. The community impact statement provides important context, situating Mr. MacDonald’s actions within a broader climate in which many Asian Canadians experience fear and a diminished sense of belonging. It is evident that such conduct generates apprehension, anger, and frustration. When the conduct is repeated, it intensifies feelings of vulnerability.
[18] While community impact is an important consideration, Mr. MacDonald must be sentenced for his own conduct. He is not to be held responsible for all instances of anti-Asian racism, nor for the broader climate in which such incidents occur. However, his actions form part of that larger context and serve to reinforce the fear and insecurity experienced within the community. In that sense, while he did not create those broader harms, he bears some responsibility for contributing to them.
[12] The principal aggravating factor is that Mr. MacDonald’s threat was clearly motivated by prejudice toward the Asian community. This is a statutorily aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(i). Hate-motivated threats are insidious. They serve to normalize hostility and increase the risk of escalation into more serious forms of harm.
[19] The offence is … aggravated by several other factors… [T]he threats were made in a public setting, where members of the community are entitled to feel safe and secure. They were entirely unprovoked. When confronted, Mr. MacDonald did not apologize or attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he persisted and escalated his conduct by making further derogatory remarks. [The court also took into consideration MacDonald’s lengthy criminal record for violent offences, together with his failure to undertake any meaningful rehabilitative efforts. These heightened the need to protect the public.]
[20] The most significant mitigating factor is Mr. MacDonald’s guilty plea. It spared Ms. Vu and Mr. Crowley the emotional trauma of testifying and reflects an acceptance of responsibility. While the plea also suggests some degree of remorse, it is concerning that Mr. MacDonald has not pursued any counselling or rehabilitative programming to better
understand or address the factors underlying his racist conduct. [Ultimately, the sentence imposed included a requirement for MacDonald to participate in anger management and racial sensitivity training during the probation period following jail.]
[23] 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
[32] Given the seriousness of the offence, the aggravating factors present, and Mr. MacDonald’s history, a community-based disposition would not adequately reflect the gravity of the conduct or convey the necessary denunciatory message. Nor would it provide a sufficient deterrent to others who might be inclined to engage in similar behaviour. A measured custodial sentence properly reflects the seriousness of the offence, promotes respect for the law, and reinforces that racially motivated threats in public spaces will attract significant consequences.
[33] I have also considered the collateral consequences that may flow from a sentence of imprisonment. Although a period of custody will impact Mr. MacDonald’s employment prospects, family life, and financial circumstances, those consequences do not outweigh the need to impose a sentence that adequately reflects the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. While I have taken this impact into account, they are insufficient to displace the need for a custodial sentence that meaningfully holds Mr. MacDonald accountable and clearly communicates that such conduct will not be tolerated: R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577; R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24.
Analysis
This decision has implications well beyond the individual offender and the specific individuals and community targeted. Justice Weinstein recognized the current climate in Canada that has seen a troubling increase in overt expressions of intolerance and hate generally. He rejected the application of freedom of speech guarantees to threats of violence or dehumanizing conduct directed against others, and explained why such conduct will increasingly become normalized if not met with a firm response emphasizing principles of deterrence and denunciation.
The decision has direct application to the normalized manifestations of hatred the Jewish community is experiencing. Indeed, Justice Weinstein cited with approval the decision of Justice Townsend in R. v. Gobin. In that case, the accused was convicted after a trial of two counts of assault and one count of breach of probation. The assault relating to an incident where the accused spit on two members of the Jewish community and said words to the effect of “Hitler should have killed you all, Hitler was right.” The accused in that case had an extensive criminal record and expressed no remorse. He was sentenced to twelve
months imprisonment. Justice Townsend emphasized that general deterrence and denunciation are the primary principles when sentencing an accused for a hate-motivated offence: In particular, he stated:
[33] Frequently we hear news stories about members of the Jewish community, and the community as a whole, suffering victimization at the hands of hate-filled offenders. Threats are made to bomb schools, tombstones and places of worship are vandalized, posters and material are strewn about in the street. This has to stop. The hateful targeting of Jewish people, and the targeting of any of the multicultural communities that make up Canada has to stop.
[34] One way to get this to stop is for the court to impose sentences which accurately reflect the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Members of the public need to know that if you commit a hate-motivated offence – whether toward the Jewish community, the Black community, women, or the LGBTQ+ community to name a few – you will be sentenced accordingly. Sentences imposed must reflect the reality that hate-motivated offences are on the rise. Communities must not be forced to be revictimized over and over again by the actions of hate-filled offenders.
Both these judgements also reinforce for the Jewish community – indeed, all targeted communities – that forming alliances to combat hatred and build common understanding strengthens our collective voices. That is one reason why ALCCA facilitates the collaborative participation of Jewish and non-Jewish organizations in filing a single joint community impact statements in these cases.
A climate of normalized hatred affects us all.
-30-
About the Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.