WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notices be attached to the file:
This is a case under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is subject to subsections 110(1) and 111(1) and section 129 of the Act. These provisions read as follows:
IDENTITY OF OFFENDER NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
IDENTITY OF VICTIM OR WITNESS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.
NO SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE — No person who is given access to a record or to whom information is disclosed under this Act shall disclose that information to any person unless the disclosure is authorized under this Act.
Subsection 138(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with these provisions, states as follows:
- OFFENCES — Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published) . . . or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
I.H. (A Young Person)
Before Justice G.P. Renwick
Heard on 02 October 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on 05 October 2025
J. Vlacic...................................................................................... counsel for the prosecution
D. Stein............................................................................ counsel for the Young Person I.H.
SENTENCING DECISION UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (“YCJA”)
INTRODUCTION
1The Young Person pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery. These were violent car-jackings.
2The parties jointly propose a sentence that accounts for an excessive amount of time that the Young Person spent in pre-trial custody and acknowledges that a significant period of probation and ancillary Orders are required.
THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
3The parties agree that the Young Person acted with others to forcefully take two vehicles and attempt to steal a third, which ended when the victim fought back and the Young Person and his accomplice ran away.
4On 27 April 2023, 60-year-old Weiling Feng was grabbed by the neck and forcibly pulled away from her 2012 Mercedes sedan outside a community centre at 7:47 p.m..
5On 10 May 2023, 74-year-old Claudette Maalouf was forcefully dragged from her 2020 Hyundai Kona sedan in a Walmart parking lot at 7:30 a.m. Ms. Maalouf was treated at the hospital for minor injuries. She had limited mobility for a few weeks and continues to suffer psychologically from the trauma of the robbery.
6On 14 June 2023, Garvinder Nath was accosted by the Young Person and another male while delivering pizza at 1:30 a.m. They beat him and threatened the use of a gun. Mr. Nath fought back and the Young Person and the other male fled.
7Mr. Nath was then murdered on 09 July 2023 while delivering a pizza to an empty home. It is unknown if this murder is related to the attempted car-jacking one month prior.
8Initially, the Young Person confessed to Mr. Nath’s murder as a way to have the police return him to Canada from a boarding school in Africa. The Young Person was arrested for that murder and was held in custody for many months until he admitted having made a false confession. A search of the Young Person’s cell phone revealed his role in these three robberies.
9Photographs of the two stolen vehicles were found in the Young Person’s cell phone. Also, there were messages to others bragging about the Young Person’s role as a getaway driver. Ms. Maalouf was described as “sum old lady” and the Young Person used four laughing emoji’s following his message about her robbery. His message bragged that, “We made like 18k off these 2 [cars].”
10There are few mitigating features to consider:
i. The Offender is a Young Person; he was 13 and 14 years old at the time of these robberies;
ii. The Young Person pleaded guilty;
iii. The Young Person apologized in court for his actions;
iv. The Young Person has begun his rehabilitation while in custody; and
v. The Young Person did not have a prior Youth Court record.
11There are some aggravating factors as well:
i. The Young Person’s actions caused lasting psychological injury to at least one of his victims;
ii. The Young Person bragged that he had profited financially from these callous attacks;
iii. The victims were all vulnerable in different ways; and
iv. The Young Person used actual violence and threatened violence to achieve or attempt to achieve his aims.
DISCUSSION
12The parties are joined that this case meets the threshold for consideration of custody pursuant to s.39(1)(d) of the YCJA, which reads:
A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under section 42 (youth sentences) unless
(d) in exceptional cases where the young person has committed an indictable offence, the aggravating circumstances of the offence are such that the imposition of a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles set out in s. 38.
13According to s. 38(1) of the YCJA, the purpose of sentencing a young person is to hold them accountable through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.
14The principles in s.38 require that sentences for young persons:
i. Should not result in a punishment that is greater than would be appropriate for an adult in similar circumstances;
ii. Should be similar to sentences for others in this region found guilty in similar circumstances;
iii. Should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the level of responsibility of the young person;
iv. Should consider all other sanctions besides custody that are reasonable;
v. Should be the least restrictive sentence, which is most likely to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young person into society and promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement by the young person of the harm done; and
vi. Which may denounce unlawful conduct and deter the young person from further offence.
As well, I am required to take into account the following in determining an appropriate Youth sentence:
i. The degree of participation of the young person in the offence;
ii. The harm done to any victims;
iii. Any reparations made by the young person to the community;
iv. Time spent in detention;
v. Previous findings of guilt; and
vi. Any other aggravating or mitigating factors.
15I have taken into account the sentencing principles, the facts of this case, the ancillary consequence of significant pre-trial detention, and the submissions of two senior, experienced counsel. I find that s.39(1)(d) applies and custody could be imposed as an appropriate punishment in this case. I also find that a custodial sentence is the only sentence which can meet all of the requirements of s.38, and specifically subs. 38(2)(a), (b), (c), (e)(i),(ii), and (iii) and (f)(i) and (ii).
16The parties have not sought a pre-sentence report as required by s. 39(6) of the Act. To the extent that I am able to do so, I have acceded to the request not to apply this subsection for the following reasons:
i. The matter has been before the courts for 13 months, which is significant to the Young Person; any further delay may be detrimental to the mental health of the Young Person and the complainants;
ii. The Young Person has not requested a pre-sentence report; and
iii. Although the disposition speaks of a sentence of custody, no actual custody is to be imposed.
17The Young Person was arrested in November 2023. He remained in custody until June 2025. He has been in custody for approximately 10 months on these offences. I am being asked to apportion the eligible pre-trial detention (from August 2024 until June 2025) with enhanced credit at a rate of 1.25:1 for every day spent. This is not unreasonable in light of the following:
i. Despite his learning disability, the Young Person has made enormous gains while in youth detention; he has earned 26 certificates of completion or recognition for character, courses, training, and athletics while in custody;
ii. The Young Person accrued pre-trial detention from November 2023 until his arrest for these offences (August 2024) for a charge that was recently withdrawn and will never be applied; and
iii. Under the YCJA, young persons who offend do not earn remission on custodial sentences.
18Reluctantly, I will accede to the joint proposal, although it is on the low end of what is fit and appropriate for these offences and this Young Offender.
19I will apportion 12.5 months of pre-trial detention to the offences as follows:
i. 4 months of custody (deemed already served) for the April 2023 robbery;
ii. 4.5 months of custody (deemed already served) for the May 2023 robbery, served consecutively; and
iii. 4 months of custody (deemed already served) for the June 2023 robbery, served consecutively.
20As well, the Young Person is ordered to comply with the following terms of Probation for 18 Months:
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
Appear before the Youth Justice Court when required;
Report to a youth probation officer no later than 19 October 2025, and thereafter as directed;
You are prohibited from owning or possessing any weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device or explosive substance;
Maintain suitable efforts to continue your education or to obtain employment;
Reside in any place where the youth probation officer directs;
Complete any releases of information in favour of the youth probation officer to permit the supervision of your participation in employment or education;
Have no contact, directly or indirectly, except through legal counsel, with Weiling Feng, Claudette Maalouf, and Jahvon Golding, except for the purposes of the Education Act; and
Have no contact with anyone known to you to have a youth court or criminal record, except family relations or for the purposes of the Education Act.
21On consent, pursuant to s. 51 of the YCJA, the Young Person is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for five years.
22On consent, the Young Person must submit to Peel Regional Police by 16 November 2025 to provide a sample of his deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”). The DNA will be taken by the least intrusive manner, respecting the Young Person’s bodily integrity, privacy, health, and all appropriate precautions. The DNA will be analyzed and the results will be uploaded onto a national database for criminal investigative purposes. If the Young Person does not voluntarily submit to DNA sampling, force may be used to take a sample of his DNA.
CONCLUSION
23The Young Person is hereby sentenced to probation in recognition of his having already served the equivalent of 12.5 months in a youth custodial facility for three counts of robbery.
24I wish the Young Person well in his rehabilitation for his sake and that of our community.
Released: 05 October 2025
Justice G. Paul Renwick