ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JAYDEN MESQUITA
Reasons for Sentence released on March 4, 2025
R. Morrow counsel for the Crown
Z. Puil counsel for the accused Jayden Mesquita
OVERVIEW
1As I and other judges in this jurisdiction have noted in previous decisions, auto theft has become an epidemic in Halton Region. One need only speak to their neighbour or turn on their radio to hear anecdotes of the steep rise in this type of crime in the past couple of years. While many of these thefts occur under the cover of darkness, with the assailants never encountering the vehicle's owner, thieves are becoming bolder, robbing the victims of their possessions and vehicles in broad daylight. Mr. Mesquita and his colleagues were some of these more brazen thieves.
2On April 5, 2024, after I presided over a Preliminary Inquiry in this matter, Mr. Mesquita re-elected to have his trial held before me and then pled guilty to one count of robbing Bhavna Thakersee of her motor vehicle on May 27, 2022 and robbing Jill MacKenzie of her motor vehicle on May 30, 2022.
3While I heard a significant amount of evidence sitting as the Preliminary Inquiry Justice, Mr. Mesquita admitted specific facts for the purposes of his plea. Those facts are contained in an Agreed Statement of Fact, filed as Exhibit 1 on this guilty plea.
4As part of the guilty plea, Mr. Mesquita called evidence on the sentencing. The purpose of this evidence was to outline an alleged breach of his Charter rights and improper conduct on the part of the police during a separate incident. The specifics of this allegation will be discussed in more detail later.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5Mr. Mesquita admitted, through the Agreed Statement of Fact, that he perpetrated a series of robberies and attempted robberies between May 27, 2022 and June 6, 2022. He carried out these robberies with at least three other individuals. These parties had discussed, contemplated, and ultimately agreed to pursue this common unlawful objective, bringing a criminal conspiracy into being. The criminal conspiracy persisted until police intervened and arrested the accused alongside two of his co-conspirators on June 6, 2022.
6One of the specific robberies to which Mr. Mesquita pled guilty was on May 27, 2022. On this day, Ms. Bhavna Thakersee drove her Range Rover to a shopping centre at 2091, Winston Park Drive in Oakville, where she was meeting a friend for lunch. The accused and several other assailants, including a Mr. Layne, a Mr. Johnson and a Mr. Francois, arrived at the same plaza in Mr. Mesquita's blue Honda Civic around this time. They stopped near Ms. Thakersee's parked vehicle and waited.
7At approximately 4:30 PM, Ms. Thakersee returned to her vehicle and opened the rear driver's side door to put her purse down. The assailants pulled forward in their blue Honda Civic, blocking the Range Rover's escape.
8One assailant (not Mr. Mesquita) approached Ms. Thakersee from behind and held her by the shoulders or upper arms. A second assailant approached her after she began screaming and told her to be quiet, saying that he had a knife. A third assailant began going through Ms. Thakersee's purse for her car keys. When the keys were located, one of the assailants pushed Ms. Thakersee to the side before the group fled the scene in Mr. Mesquita's blue Honda Civic and the Range Rover.
9The force applied upon Ms. Thakersee was minimal, in that she suffered no physical injuries as a result of the incident. No weapon was actually observed during the robbery. Mr. Mesquita remained in the blue Honda Civic throughout the incident and acted as the getaway driver.
10The second robbery that Mr. Mesquita pled guilty to was on May 30, 2022, 3 days after the robbery of Ms. Thakersee. On this occasion, Ms. MacKenzie drove her Range Rover to the Dorval Centre at 200 North Service Road in Oakville, where she parked and went about some errands. Mr. Mesquita and several other assailants arrived at the same plaza, again in his blue Honda Civic, and stopped behind Ms. MacKenzie's parked Range Rover and waited.
11Ms. MacKenzie returned to her vehicle at approximately 3:40 pm. As she was about to get into her vehicle, the assailants pulled forward in the blue Honda Civic, blocking the Range Rover's ability to leave. One of the assailants pushed Ms. MacKenzie from behind and demanded her car keys. She quickly surrendered her keys to that person and ran to a nearby store. The assailants then fled the scene in Mr. Mesquita's blue Honda Civic and the stolen Range Rover. Ms. MacKenzie did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of the force applied to her.
12As mentioned, Mr. Mesquita was ultimately arrested on June 6, 2022. In the Agreed Statement of Fact, Mr. Mesquita admitted that he and two of his co-conspirators planned to attempt another carjacking. One of the assailants drove the aforementioned blue Honda Civic to the Fairview Mall in Toronto. They parked the vehicle near an unoccupied Range Rover and waited for the driver to return, whereupon the robbery would be attempted in much the same manner as the earlier incidents. The accused parties waited for a time, but left before the driver returned.
13The three men then drove the blue Honda Civic to the Sherway Gardens Mall in Etobicoke. They again parked near an unoccupied Range Rover and waited for the driver to return, whereupon the robbery would be attempted. Unbeknownst to any of the assailants, the police had been tracking their Honda Civic via tracking devices and a police helicopter and had been following the vehicle for some time. Mr. Mesquita and his two co-accused were placed under arrest before the driver of the Range Rover returned.
POSITIONS ON SENTENCE
14The Crown suggests that a sentence of 27 months (or 2 years and 3 months) is appropriate. They also request a section 109 of the Criminal Code weapons prohibition order for life, and that a sample of Mr. Mesquita's DNA be taken. They furthermore request an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting Mr. Mesquita from communicating with a number of people, including his co-accused, while in custody.
15Defence counsel suggests that a conditional sentence, allowing Mr. Mesquita to serve his sentence in the community under strict conditions, would adequately address the principles of sentencing in this case. They take no issue with the ancillary orders being sought by the Crown.
16Section 344(1)(b) is an indictable offence, and punishable to imprisonment for life. There is no mandatory minimum for this offence, and therefore the conditional sentence provisions of the Criminal Code are available to Mr. Mesquita, if in fact I decide the fit sentence is less than two years and otherwise appropriate.
IMPACT OF THE OFFENCE ON THE COMPLAINANT
17A Victim Impact Statement was prepared by Ms. Thakersee for the sentencing of Mr. Layne, one of the co-accused who pled guilty before me on an earlier date. Her statement, however, applies to all of the assailants who robbed her that day. In it, she describes the considerable amount of mental and emotional stress that Mr. Mesquita's actions, and the actions of his co-accused, caused her. To her credit, she also states the following:
I do hope that, in the future, he makes better choices, including about the company he keeps. He should know that he is better than this and should strive to live up to his true potential, without letting himself and his family down again. I would like him to know that as a young man he has his whole life ahead of him - he should live it with integrity, principle and dignity. He should use this experience to transform his life into one he and his family can be proud of.
18This is a remarkably optimistic statement from a victim of a terrifying crime. I am sure other members of our community would not be so positive and forgiving.
19Ms. MacKenzie did not provide any input about her experience.
20Ms. Thakersee's encouraging comments aside, it must be remembered what Mr. Mesquita did. In broad daylight, he and his accomplices swarmed innocent members of our community and took their vehicles by force. One need not have a Victim Impact Statement to come to the commonsense conclusion of how terrifying that must have been.
21As mentioned at the outset, thefts of automobiles are all too common in our community now. As Justice Latimer of our jurisdiction noted in the very recent case of R.
v. Casseus, 2024 ONCJ 654 at paragraph 6:
Auto theft cases are flowing into our criminal courts at a concerning rate. In 2019, 494 cars were reported stolen in this region. In 2023, that number rose to 1379. That is an increase of over 179% in two years. In 2023, two vehicles were stolen for every 1000 citizens in our community. Further, as [the Crown] acknowledged in submissions, these numbers may not even include circumstances like the present case, where an unsuccessful attempt was made to steal a vehicle.
22The Crown did not file the same evidence about car theft in Mr. Mesquita's case as they did in Casseus, but even without those statistics, there is no denying that car theft has increased at a startling rate in Halton and has become a serious stress and concern for its citizens.
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER
23A Pre-Sentence Report ("PSR") was prepared. It paints a fuller picture of Mr. Mesquita's background, education and personal relationships. To be frank, it is one of the more positive PSRs I have seen. He described a happy and normal childhood, devoid of any abuse, with a loving mother who provided for him emotionally, spiritually and financially. He does not know his father, but has other family members who helped raise him.
24He is also in a committed relationship with his girlfriend. Mr. Mesquita himself is now a father. He has a 6-month-old daughter that he wishes to help raise. He graduated high school and has completed a Home Renovation course through York Construction Academy.
25There were also letters of support. They are, frankly, heartbreaking. His mother has been deeply affected and let down by her son's conduct. As has his aunt, who while acknowledging the seriousness of his crimes, begs the court for mercy. His girlfriend wants very much for Mr. Mesquita to be present in her children's lives. He is the biological father to her youngest, but he takes on a parental role for her other children as well.
26In the end, I am left confused as to why someone, with such a positive upbringing and strong social circle would commit such terrorizing crimes. He definitely appears to be an intelligent, caring, talented and driven individual with a lot of opportunities and support, but at the same time, appears to be an individual who threw those opportunities and hard work away to participate in these robberies.
PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING AND ANALYSIS
27I must consider what constitutes a proportionate sentence in these circumstances, having regard to the objectives and principles of sentencing outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code and in the case law.
28As, both counsel pointed out, denunciation and deterrence are the primary considerations when sentencing individuals found guilty of robbery. This was also recently reiterated by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Hanna, 2024 ONCA 911 at paragraph 6.
29Courts have very few options other than imprisonment to achieve the objectives of
denunciation and deterrence - see for example our Court of Appeal in R. v. lnksetter, 2018 ONCA 474 at paragraph 17 and the case of R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paragraph 6, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
While it is normal for trial judges to consider sentences other than imprisonment in appropriate cases, in the instant case, as in all cases in which general or specific deterrence and denunciation must be emphasized, the courts have very few options other than imprisonment for meeting these objectives, which are essential to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and law-abiding society.
30Lacasse was an impaired driving causing death case, but its comments with respect to jail being necessary to address denunciation and deterrence are equally applicable to any case where those factors are the primary considerations.
31I want to be clear that I am cognizant of the fact that a conditional sentence, as requested by Mr. Mesquita, is considered a jail sentence, and as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 can, in the right circumstances, address the principles of sentencing contained in the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence.
32Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides other sentencing principles I must consider. While that section emphasizes that an offender should not be deprived of their liberty when less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate, it also states that sentences must be consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community.
33Furthermore, section 718.2(b) states that "a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances". In this regard, it is important to remember that Mr. Layne and Mr. Johnson, both of whom were involved in the same robberies, were given significant penitentiary sentences. Mr. Layne received a 4-year sentence, although he pled guilty to more charges in this case, and additional charges from another jurisdiction. Mr. Johnson pled guilty to 3 counts in this case, and received a 3 1/2 year sentence for his role in the robberies. A significant difference between these three offenders is that Mr. Layne and Mr. Johnson both had prior criminal records, so unlike Mr. Mesquita, it was not their first encounter with the criminal justice system.
34Mr. Francois, the third assailant in this case, did not have a criminal record, and his circumstances are more similar to those of Mr. Mesquita. After careful consideration of Mr. Francois' personal circumstances, I found that a 2 ½ year sentence was appropriate.
35Although parity of sentence (as outlined in section 718.2(b) above) is appropriate, sentencing must always remain an individual process which requires flexibility in the application of all the principles of sentencing to the relevant factors related to the offence and the offender.
36The seriousness of Mr. Mesquita's offences cannot be disputed. He and his colleagues essentially swarmed innocent members of our community in the middle of the day. While it was not Mr. Mesquita who laid hands on Ms. Thakersee and Ms. MacKenzie, he was a willing party to both robberies and is no less culpable for the trauma the group inflicted on these victims. Ms. Thakersee was held briefly, told that the assailants had a knife, and her vehicle was then taken and never recovered. Ms. MacKenzie's Range Rover was similarly never recovered.
37It is not as though Mr. Mesquita's participation in these crimes was a "one-off' endeavour. He carried out these robberies with at least three other individuals and as agreed to in the Statement of Facts, these parties had discussed, contemplated, and ultimately agreed to pursue this common unlawful objective. While the victims were random, the crime – robbing somebody of their high-end vehicle – was very much premeditated. Mr. Mesquita drove the getaway car on the first occasion, and then 3 days later, committed the exact same offence. A week later, he was set up again, ready to commit a third robbery.
38In short, Mr. Mesquita was part of a group of men that were on a terrorizing crime spree in the Greater Toronto Area in the spring of 2022.
39Robbery carries with it the potential of a life sentence for a reason. As our Supreme Court of Canada recently held in R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 at paragraph 53, "even when committed without a firearm, robbery is a serious offence based on the
requisite actus reus of the use or threat of violence or force in stealing or attempting to steal property."
40Justice Latimer, now a judge of our Superior Court, but in 2024 sitting on this court in Halton aptly described the seriousness of car jacking cases in R. v. Dhillon, 2024 ONCJ 284 at paragraph 18:
The gravity of these crimes is enormous. Our cars are safe havens for citizens when out and about in the community. Mr. Dhillon stole that feeling of safety from these individuals. He did so brazenly and in public, and in taking their vehicles at gunpoint, made these citizens fear for their lives.
41Dhillon involved an imitation firearm, which is why Mr. Dhillon, a first-time adult offender, received a 5-year sentence in that case. Justice Latimer's comments about the seriousness of the car jacking robberies, however, applies to Mr. Mesquita's crimes as well. The lack of a firearm being used in the robberies certainly distinguishes Mr. Mesquita's case from that of Mr. Dhillon's, but the robberies in the case at bar nonetheless remain terrifying. Innocent members of our community, who were simply going about their day, shopping, having lunch with friends or travelling to and from work should not be subjected to the type of terror Mr. Mesquita and his accomplices inflicted upon the victims in this case.
42All this being said, this case is not without its mitigating circumstances. First and foremost, in my view, Mr. Mesquita pled guilty. It was not an early guilty plea, and came
at the end of a lengthy Preliminary Inquiry where I found that the matter should be committed to stand trial in the Superior Court of Justice. All parties, however, re-elected before the formal committal to stand trial so they could plead guilty before me. The trial in this matter would have been complex, in my view, and while it was a strong Crown case involving cell phone data, tracking devices and video surveillance, there is never a guarantee that a finding of guilt will occur after trial. Mr. Mesquita, by pleading guilty, relieved the Crown of that heavy burden, accepted responsibility, and that is a significant sign of remorse.
43I find that Mr. Mesquita was at the bottom of the hierarchy in these robberies. He was the driver of the getaway car, and never had any interaction with the victims. I was told in submissions, and it was not contested by the Crown, that Mr. Mesquita felt threatened by his co-conspirators and immediately confessed to the police upon his arrest. While being the driver of the getaway car certainly makes him a party to this very serious offence, his role and to a lesser extent, moral culpability, is less than that of his associates.
44Mr. Mesquita is also a first time, youthful offender. His PSR and letters of reference that I reviewed earlier present an intelligent and hard working young man who completed school and is now pursuing a career in home renovations. He also has significant support from his family, and in particular his girlfriend, with whom he now has a child.
THE SUBSEQUENT ARREST OF MR. MESQUITA:
45I will now turn to counsel's argument with respect to Mr. Mesquita's subsequent arrest while he was on bail, and what effect, if any, it may have on the appropriate sentence.
46The circumstances surrounding Mr. Mesquita's arrest while he was on bail can be summarized as follows.
47When released on bail for his robbery offences, one of the conditions that he was to abide by was to "reside with your surety at […] Crescent, North York, ON each and every night'. On January 29, 2023, police attended at the named address around 10 pm and Mr. Mesquita was not there. Around 11:30 pm, Mr. Mesquita pulled into the driveway and was arrested for breaching the above condition. He was held in custody until the next morning, when the Crown exercised their discretion and withdrew the charges.
48The officers explained that their interpretation of the bail condition was that Mr. Mesquita was to be home each and every night - "Night" being defined in the Criminal Code as "the period between nine o'clock in the afternoon and six o'clock in the forenoon of the following day". He was therefore, in their view, breaching this condition when he was not home until 11:30 pm.
49When he was arrested, the police did a cursory search of a backpack that was within reach of Mr. Mesquita in the back seat of his car. Nothing was located.
50One junior officer, though I did not hear from him, apparently questioned the authority to arrest Mr. Mesquita, but the senior officers made the call to affect the arrest.
51Counsel for Mr. Mesquita argues that there was a breach of Mr. Mesquita's Charter rights as a result of him being arrested. They submit that the police should have done more to investigate the meaning of "reside each and every night" before placing him under arrest. The remedy sought by counsel is a reduction in his sentence on the charges before me.
52I find no misconduct or Charter breaches on the part of the police. Acting on what they believed to be essentially a curfew condition, they arrested Mr. Mesquita for being outside at "night". The search incident to that arrest was of a backpack that was within reach of Mr. Mesquita and was nothing more than a cursory look inside.
53Where the problem lies is with the bail condition itself. It is difficult to imagine a more vague condition on a form of release. While it is not a specified "curfew", it certainly appears to be one. Otherwise, what is meant by "each and every night"? It could not possibly be the case that the condition requires Mr. Mesquita to put his foot in the door at least once every night, and thus be in compliance with the condition. But if not a curfew, then why not simply say - "reside at the address"?
54The Crown, in withdrawing the charge immediately the next day, was correct to do so. The term in the bail was doomed from the beginning, being far too vague for any meaningful interpretation. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 at paragraph 102:
Ultimately, the obligation to ensure that accused persons are released on appropriate bail orders lies with the judicial official. As with the setting of cash deposits in Antic, if a judicial official does not understand how a condition is appropriate, "a justice or a judge setting bail is under a positive obligation" to make inquiries into whether the suspect bail condition is necessary, reasonable, least onerous, and sufficiently linked to the accused's risks (paras. 56 and 67(i)). Before transforming bail conditions into personal sources of potential criminal liability, judicial officials are asked to use their discretion with care and review the proposed conditions to make sure they are focussed, narrow, and tightly-framed to address the accused's risks. (Emphasis added).
55“Reside at an address each and every night” is certainly not, in my view, "focussed, narrow or tightly-framed". Careless language such as this leads to the exact problem we saw unfold in this case.
56All of this being said, I cannot say that Mr. Mesquita was arrested without grounds. The police interpretation of the condition as a curfew was reasonable. But the condition should never have been open to interpretation in the first place. I am told this is a common condition in our Bail Courts nowadays. I was startled by this submission, as it is far too vulnerable to misinterpretation, as demonstrated here.
57In all the circumstances, due to this unfortunate event, I am prepared to treat this incident as a further mitigating circumstance on Mr. Mesquita’s sentence. I want to be clear that I do not find any fault on the part of the police, but it was also not Mr. Mesquita’s fault. Unfortunately, he was arrested in front of his family and spent a night in jail because of this poorly drafted bail condition.
CONCLUSION
58Robbing innocent parties while they are simply going about their daily routines is a cowardly and disgusting act. Mr. Mesquita and his accomplices did not care about the psychological or physical harm they may cause with their actions. Somebody could have been seriously hurt, either during the actual robbery, or while the offenders were escaping in the stolen vehicles and/or Mr. Mesquita's car at a high rate of speed. It is very fortunate that no known physical injuries were ever incurred.
59It is also clear that these offences were based solely on greed and they were committed more than once, over a number of days.
60After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the governing case law and the need to deter and denounce this type of crime, I find that a sentence of 2 years is the fit sentence.
61A reasonably informed member of the public, knowing all of the circumstances of this offence and this offender, must know that these types of offences carry with them strict penalties. But when that same member of the public sees all of the following mitigating circumstances in this case, they will understand the sentence that is being imposed.
Mr. Mesquita was at the bottom of this hierarchy. While he was a party of the offence, the Crown does not take issue with fact that he was the "outsider" of this group, who was maybe frightened of his co-accused and who, on the night of his arrest, confessed to the police about his involvement.
His PSR and letters of reference are very positive. I accept that this encounter with the criminal justice system was contrary to his typical behaviour.
He is a first-time offender and pled guilty. While he pled guilty after his preliminary inquiry, the preliminary inquiry was conducted in an efficient manner and committal to stand trial was never significantly contested.
Mr. Mesquita was subsequently arrested as a result of an unreasonable bail condition. I have no information as to how this condition came into being, but for what it's worth, I would strongly suggest it no longer form part of any judicial interim release order. While I find no fault on the part of the police or Mr. Mesquita, I do find the incident to be an exceptional mitigating circumstance.
62Having found that the appropriate sentence in Mr. Mesquita's case is a term of 2 years in the penitentiary, I need not consider if a Conditional Sentence is appropriate, as it is unavailable to him in these circumstances.
63I repeat, without placing too much emphasis on this one factor, car thefts and the types of robberies committed here are on the rise in our community. Like Justice Latimer in Dhillon, I make this finding on the basis of judicial notice as a judge who works and resides in this community. The prevalence of this form of criminality and the fear it is inflicting on this community is yet another additional aggravating feature in this case.
64I also, as I must, take into account that the co-accused, who also pled guilty in this case, received sentences of 4 and 3 1/2 years, and for Mr. Francois, who had no criminal record, 2 ½ years. As noted, their personal circumstances are different than those of Mr. Mesquita, and I ultimately recognize that by imposing a lower sentence for him. But even if it were a sentence of less than 2 years, I do not accept that a Conditional Sentence would be appropriate. While there are mitigating circumstances in his case, I do not find that those mitigating circumstances rise to the level of exceptional circumstances, justifying a Conditional Sentence for two robberies.
65I am sympathetic to the fact that Mr. Mesquita is a new father and a first-time offender. At the end of the day, though, there were 2 robberies and one attempt robbery in this case. These were not cars stolen out of a driveway, but rather, they were cars that were violently taken from innocent people who were just going about their day.
66This sentence is necessary to denounce the seriousness of these violent actions, and to send the proper message to the community and like-minded offenders that such offences will be treated seriously. Had this not been a guilty plea, which I accept as a sign of remorse and a significant mitigating factor, the sentence would have been much higher. I again borrow from the words of Justice Latimer in the Casseus decision where His Honour stated at paragraph 35:
While the Court (of course) does not direct prosecutorial decision-making, it does speak through its judgments. Criminal sentence decisions in Halton Region will take into consideration local trends and conditions. Given the current epidemic of auto theft ... the local sentence range for this criminality is trending upwards.
67While this jail term is a significant restriction on Mr. Mesquita's liberty, it is not so crushing a sentence as to snuff out any possibility of rehabilitation. It will also allow Mr. Mesquita to access various resources that are available in the jail. Mr. Mesquita has shown initiative and hard work in the past, making several impressive accomplishments thus far in his life. It is unfortunate, and frankly, puzzling, why he decided to participate in the crime spree that he did. But if he truly does want to further his education and employment skills, he will have access to such programs in the institution. I hope that he takes advantage of those opportunities, and after serving his sentence, comes out of the institution with a renewed desire to make his family, and himself, proud.
THE SENTENCE
68Mr. Mesquita, you are sentenced to 2 years in jail. There is an order pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, firearm part, ammunition and explosive substance for life. There will also be a sample of your DNA taken today. Finally, there will be an order pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting you from communicating with your co accused, while in custody. Those names will be outlined in the order that I will review and sign.
69You made a huge mistake in committing these offences, as it has seriously jeopardized your once bright future. But they were not offences that were a one-off. They were premeditated and calculated, in conjunction with others, with the sole goal of terrorizing members of this community. For that, the sentence must address the seriousness of the offence.
70I have taken into account your role in this case, your guilty plea and your otherwise clean past. You have demonstrated in the past that you are capable of doing good things, and once your sentence is complete, there is nothing stopping you from making a better life for yourself. While I have given you a significantly lesser sentence than your co accused for a number of reasons I have discussed in detail, it would not be appropriate to allow you to serve this sentence in the community. That would not send the proper message to likeminded individuals, nor would it adequately denounce the seriousness of your offence.
Released: March 4, 2025
Justice B.G. Puddington