A request to borrow a cellphone appeared ordinary. What happened afterward became the beginning of two frightening encounters involving two women in the Greater Toronto Area, separated by only two days. Diavion Henningham of Brampton ultimately pleaded guilty to kidnapping and attempted kidnapping stemming from incidents in Mississauga and North York in May 2021.
The timing of the second offence became especially important at sentencing. According to the court account reported by Global News, Henningham had already been arrested, charged and released on an undertaking with conditions arising from the first incident when he approached another woman the next day. More than four years later, guilty pleas and sentencing brought renewed attention to what the judge described as attacks on women who were alone in public and whose willingness to help a stranger was exploited.
A Cellphone Request Led to the First Kidnapping
The first incident began on May 21, 2021, near Hurontario Street and Eglinton Avenue in Mississauga. According to the agreed statement of facts described at sentencing, Henningham approached a woman who was speaking on her cellphone and asked whether he could borrow it because he was supposedly having trouble with his own device. She agreed. What initially looked like a small favour gradually drew her toward a vehicle in a nearby shopping-plaza parking lot. Henningham then offered her a ride to Square One, which she accepted.
Once the vehicle was moving, the situation changed dramatically. The woman noticed that Henningham was travelling in the wrong direction and questioned him. He said he first needed to visit a friend. When she attempted to get her phone back, the court heard that Henningham pushed and repeatedly struck her. Contemporary police reporting similarly described a woman being driven away from her intended destination and assaulted while being prevented from leaving the vehicle.
Her Attempt to Escape Drew Another Driver’s Attention
As the vehicle continued moving, the woman tried to get out. The sentencing account describes an especially dangerous moment in which she opened the passenger door while the car was still travelling and attempted to escape. Henningham prevented her from doing so, pulling the door closed and assaulting her again. A passing motorist saw what was happening—including the woman attempting to get out—and called 911. The intervention did not immediately end the ordeal, but it created an independent witness to what was unfolding.
The journey eventually covered roughly 11 kilometres from its starting point, according to the court account. Henningham ultimately stopped and allowed the woman to get out before driving away. Earlier police reporting said she escaped in the Godwick Drive and Atwood Lane area and suffered minor physical injuries. The episode illustrates why kidnapping cases can involve far more than simply moving someone from one location to another: the loss of control, the inability to leave and the fear of what may happen next can become central elements of the harm.
Henningham Was Released Before the Second Incident
The sentencing account states that the vehicle involved in the first incident was registered to Henningham’s stepfather and that Henningham was arrested the next day. He acknowledged giving the woman a ride but claimed that she had assaulted him. He was subsequently released on an undertaking with conditions. Superior Court Justice James Stribopoulos later treated what happened after that release as an important aggravating feature of the case.
An undertaking is a formal release mechanism under the Criminal Code, not simply an informal promise to police. Canadian law requires an undertaking to include an obligation to attend court and permits additional conditions when reasonably necessary for purposes such as protecting victims or witnesses, preventing repetition of an offence or addressing other identified risks. The important point in Henningham’s sentencing was not merely that he had been released. It was that, according to the judge’s findings, another attempted kidnapping happened one day after he had been charged and released in connection with the first event.
Another Woman Was Approached Two Days Later
On May 23, 2021, Henningham approached a second woman in a shopping plaza in North York, near Finch Avenue West and Pearldale Avenue. Once again, a cellphone became the opening. He asked to use the woman’s phone, and she allowed him to do so. The similarities between the two encounters became significant at sentencing because both involved strangers who initially responded to what appeared to be a routine request for assistance.
The second encounter escalated when Henningham asked whether the woman wanted a ride home. She declined. According to the sentencing facts, he then grabbed her arm and attempted to pull her toward the vehicle while repeatedly telling her to get inside. She resisted, screamed and temporarily managed to move away. Henningham caught her again and struck her several times. Toronto police’s contemporary account, released immediately after the incident, likewise said officers were called at about 2:30 p.m. after a woman in her 30s was grabbed in a plaza parking lot and an attempt was made to force her into a vehicle.
Passersby Helped Stop the Second Abduction
The second woman continued fighting while Henningham attempted to force her into the vehicle. Justice Stribopoulos’s account said Henningham eventually succeeded in pulling her head-first inside. By that point, however, people nearby had noticed the struggle. One passerby called 911, another photographed the apparent assault, and an intervention gave the woman an opportunity to escape.
Those details also show how quickly an apparently private confrontation can become a public emergency. Toronto police originally reported that the suspect left the scene in a white Honda Civic and issued information about the vehicle as investigators appealed for assistance. Henningham was arrested the next day, May 24. At the time, police said they believed there could potentially be additional victims and asked anyone with information to come forward. He was subsequently granted bail on the attempted-kidnapping matter under strict conditions and the supervision of sureties, according to the later sentencing account. No additional victim cases were identified in the sentencing report reviewed for this piece.
The Charges Took Years to Reach Guilty Pleas
The offences occurred in May 2021, but Henningham did not enter his guilty pleas until September 26, 2025. According to the sentencing report, he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and attempted kidnapping on the eve of his scheduled trial. The pleas came after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a stay of proceedings. That meant more than four years had passed between the attacks and the formal admissions of guilt.
The legal characterization also evolved from what appeared in the earliest public reports. In May 2021, Peel-related reporting described charges of forcible confinement and robbery arising from the Mississauga event, while Toronto police announced a kidnapping charge after the North York incident. By sentencing, the agreed outcome was a guilty plea to kidnapping for the first episode and attempted kidnapping for the second. That distinction matters because a criminal charge announced early in an investigation is not necessarily the offence ultimately proved or admitted in court. The sentencing record is therefore the more reliable source for describing Henningham’s final criminal responsibility.
Both Women Described Harm That Continued Long Afterward
The physical encounters lasted a relatively limited period, but the court heard that their psychological consequences continued years later. The first woman described believing that her life was in danger during the kidnapping. Her victim-impact statement said the experience fundamentally changed the way she viewed the world. The second woman reported living with continuing fear and having required therapy after the attempted abduction.
Canadian sentencing law specifically requires judges to consider properly filed victim-impact statements describing physical or emotional harm, economic loss, property damage and other consequences caused by an offence. Their purpose is not to decide guilt—that stage has already passed—but to ensure that the human consequences of the crime form part of the sentencing picture. In this case, the statements gave the court information that could not be captured simply by counting kilometres travelled, punches thrown or minutes spent in a vehicle. They described the longer-lasting effect of suddenly losing a sense of safety while carrying out ordinary activities in public.
The Crown and Defence Were Far Apart on Sentence
The sentencing positions presented to Justice Stribopoulos reflected sharply different views of the appropriate punishment. The Crown sought five years in prison. The defence proposed a 12-month conditional sentence, which would allow a custodial sentence to be served in the community under court-imposed conditions, followed by another 12 months of probation. Canadian law permits conditional sentences only where statutory requirements are met, including a judicial finding that community service of the sentence would not endanger public safety and would remain consistent with sentencing principles.
The court ultimately rejected the defence request for a community-based sentence. Global News’s detailed written report says Henningham was sentenced to 2½ years in prison. There is, however, a noteworthy discrepancy in the outlet’s own coverage: the video headline attached to the story describes the sentence as three years. Because the updated written report specifically gives the 2½-year figure, that is the figure used here while the inconsistency remains acknowledged rather than concealed.
The Second Offence After Release Was an Aggravating Factor
Justice Stribopoulos specifically identified the timing of the second offence as aggravating. The attempted kidnapping occurred only two days after the first kidnapping and, according to the sentencing findings, one day after Henningham had been charged and released on an undertaking. That sequence distinguished the case from one involving two offences committed before an accused had any encounter with the justice system.
The judge also emphasized the nature of the targets and the circumstances in which Henningham approached them. Both were women alone in public places. Both initially responded to a request involving a cellphone, and the court found that Henningham exploited their willingness to help through deception. Stribopoulos stressed the need for sentencing to denounce kidnapping and attempted kidnapping and to recognize the right of women and children to move through their communities without fearing abduction by strangers. Those observations closely reflect the Criminal Code’s broader sentencing objectives, which include denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of society.
Mental Health and Low-Reoffending Assessment Were Also Considered
Sentencing did not focus solely on aggravating circumstances. Henningham had no prior criminal record and was in his early 20s when the offences occurred. A forensic psychologist assessed his background and reported that his mental health had begun deteriorating during his late teens and became worse amid the social isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic. He reported depression, heavy cannabis use and significant isolation. He also told the psychologist that he had been attempting to meet women.
The psychologist assessed Henningham as presenting a low risk of reoffending. That conclusion did not erase the seriousness of the crimes, nor does the available reporting establish that mental-health difficulties caused the kidnappings. Courts are required to consider both the offence and the individual offender when determining punishment. Canadian law makes proportionality fundamental: a sentence must reflect the gravity of the crime and the offender’s degree of responsibility. Rehabilitation can therefore matter alongside deterrence and denunciation. In Henningham’s case, the judge ultimately concluded that imprisonment was necessary despite the favourable risk assessment and the absence of an earlier record.
The Case Turned on Both Public Safety and Proportionality
Kidnapping is among the offences against the person specifically addressed in Section 279 of Canada’s Criminal Code. The provision criminalizes kidnapping carried out with an intent that includes confining or imprisoning someone against that person’s will. Depending on circumstances such as firearm use, penalties can become particularly severe. Henningham’s case, however, had to be sentenced on its own proven facts rather than against the maximum punishment available for the most serious imaginable kidnapping.
That is where the broader sentencing framework becomes important. Section 718 identifies several legitimate goals, including denunciation, deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation and encouraging offenders to acknowledge the harm they caused. Section 718.1 then requires proportionality between the sentence, the gravity of the offence and the offender’s responsibility. For Henningham, the repeated conduct, the second offence shortly after release and the continuing harm to both women weighed heavily. His lack of a prior record and psychological assessment also formed part of the picture. The resulting prison sentence reflects the court’s attempt to balance those competing considerations rather than rely on any single factor.
