- Character reference letters are a well-established part of sentencing submissions in Ontario, speaking to the accused's character, community ties, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.
- There is no specific Criminal Code provision governing them — they arise from general sentencing practice, operating within the codified sentencing framework at sections 718–718.2.
- An effective letter is specific — it identifies the writer, their relationship to the accused, and concrete, personal observations, not vague generalities.
- Letters must be truthful — a writer who can't honestly speak to the accused's character shouldn't write one, given the risk of obstruction-of-justice exposure for knowingly false statements.
- Letters that relitigate guilt or minimize the offence (“this isn't like him”) are generally viewed as unhelpful by courts, rather than genuinely mitigating.
- Quality over quantity — a few substantive, credible letters typically carry more weight than many generic ones.
The Short Answer
Yes, character letters can genuinely help at sentencing — but only when they're specific, honest, and appropriately framed. A generic or poorly considered letter can be neutral at best and counterproductive at worst.
Where Character Letters Fit in Sentencing
There is no standalone Criminal Code provision specifically governing character reference letters. They arise from general sentencing practice and defence counsel's right to make submissions in mitigation, operating within the codified sentencing framework at sections 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code — the fundamental purpose and objectives of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and others), the proportionality principle, and the individualized assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. Character letters function as mitigating evidence within that framework, particularly relevant to rehabilitation prospects and community ties.
What Makes a Letter Effective
The most effective letters clearly state who the writer is, their relationship to the accused, and how long they've known them, then offer specific, concrete observations — not generic praise. “He's a good person” carries far less weight than a detailed account of specific conduct, community involvement, or character the writer has personally witnessed over time.
A community coach writes about three years working closely with the accused as a volunteer youth mentor, describing specific instances of reliability, patience, and positive influence on young people in the program — concrete, personal, and credible, rather than a vague character reference from someone who barely knows them.
What to Avoid
- Relitigating guilt or claiming the offence “isn't like him” — courts generally view this as unhelpful minimization rather than genuine mitigation
- Vague, generic statements that could apply to almost anyone
- Excessive length — a focused, roughly one-page letter is generally more effective than a lengthy one
- Anything dishonest — beyond the ethical problem, this risks real legal consequences for the writer
Who Should Write One
Ideally, someone with genuine, meaningful knowledge of the accused over a real period of time — an employer, a coach, a community or religious leader, or a close family friend who can speak credibly and specifically. A collection of substantive letters from a few such people typically carries more weight than a large stack of brief, generic notes from acquaintances.
Honesty Isn't Optional
A character letter must be truthful. Beyond the ethical dimension, a writer who makes knowingly false statements to the court risks obstruction-of-justice exposure. If someone genuinely cannot speak honestly and positively to the accused's character, they shouldn't write a letter — the risk isn't worth it, and a compromised letter can undermine the broader sentencing submission's credibility.
Common Mistakes
Quality and specificity matter far more than volume — a handful of substantive letters is generally more effective.
Letters claiming the offence "isn't like him" tend to undermine credibility rather than help.
Generic praise carries little weight — specific, concrete observations are what make a letter genuinely persuasive.
A lawyer can help ensure letters are appropriately framed and actually support the broader sentencing submission.
Preparing for a sentencing hearing? Call our Toronto team at 416-274-2222 for a free, confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
They can, particularly for demonstrating rehabilitation prospects, community ties, and genuine remorse — factors relevant to the individualized sentencing assessment courts undertake. Their impact depends heavily on how specific, credible, and honest they are.
No fixed rule exists, but the consistent guidance from defence practice is that quality matters more than quantity — a handful of substantive, specific letters from people with real, credible knowledge of the accused typically outweigh many generic ones.
It should clearly identify who is writing, their relationship to and length of acquaintance with the accused, and specific, concrete observations about their character — not vague or generic praise. It should be respectful in tone and reasonably concise, typically around one page.
It should generally acknowledge the offence or guilty plea/finding of guilt appropriately, rather than relitigating guilt or minimizing what happened. Letters that claim "this isn't like him" or otherwise downplay the offence tend to be viewed as unhelpful rather than genuinely mitigating.
It can, if it's dishonest, overly generic, or comes across as minimizing the offence. A poorly written letter can undermine credibility rather than help — which is part of why quality and honesty matter so much.
Yes — a writer who makes knowingly false statements risks obstruction-of-justice exposure. If someone can't honestly speak to the accused's character, they shouldn't write a letter at all.
Someone with genuine, meaningful knowledge of the accused over a real period of time — an employer, a coach, a community or religious leader, a close family friend, or others who can speak credibly and specifically to their character.
Yes, this is standard practice — defence counsel typically reviews letters before submission to ensure they're appropriately framed and genuinely support the sentencing submissions being made.