ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
CGT
Before Justice Michael Boyce
Reasons for Sentence released on October 24, 2025
S. Albers................................................................... Counsel for the Crown
M. O’Doherty..................................................................... Counsel for CGT
Restriction on Publication
Pursuant to subsection 110(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act 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 having been dealt with under this Act. This decision complies with this restriction in case it is published.
Reasons for Sentence
Boyce J.
Introduction
1On July 19, 2023, just after midnight, YF, CGT and Hussein Hamam attended a commercial business at 384(a) Booth Street with the intention of setting the building on fire. One or more of the three young men poured gasoline through the unit. In executing their plan, an explosion occurred and a fire erupted, tragically claiming the life of Hussein Hamam. Mr. Hamam was 17 years old when he died.
2Following a trial, I found both YF and CGT guilty of Manslaughter, Arson Causing Bodily Harm and Possessing Incendiary Material for the Purpose of Committing Arson.
3Today, I am imposing sentence on CGT for these offences.
Circumstances of the Offence
4This was a joint enterprise by three young persons to set a commercial building on fire for reasons unknown. The arson was planned and swiftly executed, though tragically botched. Gasoline was carried to the scene. The group gained entry to the building. Gasoline was poured through most rooms in the unit. Though the evidence at trial did not establish the precise role each of the young persons played, I found that the three acted in concert. The speed with which the arson was committed supports the conclusion that more than one person was involved in committing it. I found specifically that CGT and YF carried gas cans to the scene. I also found that they fled the scene while their friend was trapped inside, and that they discarded the gas cans as they fled.
5Encompassed in the manslaughter is my finding that CGT’s conduct significantly contributed to Mr. Hamam’s death and further that a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of serious bodily harm. That said, I did not find any evidence that CGT held any animus toward Mr. Hamam. There is no evidence that CGT had any intention of bringing harm to his friend. To the contrary, the material before me for sentencing, including CGT’s letter to me, confirms that Mr. Hamam was his best friend, and he continues to grieve his death. All the reports I received for sentencing speak about the impact that Mr. Hamam’s death has had on CGT.
CGT’s Personal Circumstances
6I learned about CGT’s personal circumstances through a collection of materials filed on sentencing including a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCA) report, letter from Miriam Salad of the Centre for Resilience and Social Development (CRSD) and letters from CGT’s psychotherapist at the CRSD. CGT also wrote a letter to the Court.
7CGT was 16 years old at the time of the offence and is currently 19 years old. He was born in Halifax Nova Scotia. He has an older sister with whom he shares a strong connection. While he is of mixed race, (his father is white, and his mother is black) CGT identifies more as black and has stronger connections to his mother’s side.
8CGT spent his first few years living with his family in Halifax. However, his parents had an unstable relationship, and his father was often absent. CGT was also exposed to intimate partner violence in these early years. CGT also remembered that his family members in Halifax would often be intoxicated and get into physical altercations. His parents separated when he was 10 and, since then, he rarely has contact with his dad.
9CGT’s mom told the PSR author that one of the reasons she left Halifax with her children was to distance themselves from certain family members. CGT’s mother provided limited detail about this or other aspects of her family’s life, explaining that she had difficulty opening up due to mistrust of the government systems on account of her family’s experiences in these systems. She also explained that some of the information was triggering for her.
10CGT currently lives with his mom and sister in Ottawa. He and his mother describe having a strong relationship and that the current court proceedings have brought them closer together.
11CGT’s mother’s side comes from the black community of North Preston Nova Scotia. In the IRCA report, it is described as a community distinguished by its resilience despite a history of racism toward its residents. The report notes that CGT has had limited exposure to his black Nova Scotian heritage and, as a result, does not have a deep connection to that community.
12CGT lived at approximately seven different addresses growing up in Nova Scotia, Montreal and Ottawa. These have been mainly low-income, single parent households in disadvantaged communities. In many of these communities, exposure to criminality was high. His mother reports that she and her two kids lived in a shelter for abused women in Montreal and Ottawa for a time. They stayed in the Ottawa shelter for two years, starting from when CGT was ten years old. CGT described this as a negative experience.
13When he was 12, CGT moved into the residence where he currently lives with his mom and sister. It is a low-income neighbourhood with a higher than average crime rate and poor access to services. While the community is more racially diverse and CGT feels more welcome, he has also experienced racism directed toward him by his neighbours. His mother and Ms. Salad confirm the problem of both isolated acts of racism in the community, and broader systemic racism within the school system.
14CGT attended nine different schools growing up. I glean from the reports that his early years in school were unremarkable. He was a good student and had primarily positive experiences in school. In one report, CGT is described by school officials as an “intelligent student with many talents, a good friend to others and often demonstrates kindness towards younger students”. These are positive and noteworthy qualities.
15CGT’s mother reported that CGT was active in various school and community activities in his early teenage years.
16CGT has also had some challenges at school. In particular, CGT described how the disruptions of COVID had a significant and negative impact to his school productivity. This was an unfortunate and all too common phenomenon for many young people during this time.
17Further, the IRCA report shines a light on the impact of systemic racism in the school system and notes, in particular, the detrimental effect of the absence of black teachers and other role models as CGT progressed through the school system.
18CGT had some difficulty in his later high school years. He broke up with a partner and this caused him some emotional trauma and mental health struggles. His schooling and other areas of his life were negatively impacted. He was using marijuana which he has now stopped using. He began gravitating toward negative peer influences. He was out of the home for periods of time on account of skipping school and his refusal to follow the house rules. It was around this time that he committed the offence before the court.
19It appears that since the offences, CGT has made efforts to associate with a more positive group of peers.
20Since the charges, CGT’s schooling has been mostly positive. He appears to be on track to complete high school and is looking ahead to post-secondary education and other goals for the future. This is a positive development. CGT looks to his mother and her strong work ethic as a role model to emulate. I imagine this will assist him even further.
21CGT’s track record since the offence has not been perfect. He breached his bail conditions in November 2024 by temporarily leaving his residence contrary to his release order. In addition, while in custody, he incurred three misconducts involving violence. This is something that is of concern to the Court.
22That said, CGT has made several positive changes in his life since the offence, which will serve him well going forward and for which I commend him.
23CGT has remained connected with Ms. Salad and the CRSD.
24Ms. Salad confirms that CGT was actively involved in the CRSD’s skills-based programs while in custody and continues to be involved with their program in the community which is designed to facilitate reintegration and prevent recidivism through culturally relevant services. Ms. Salad notes that CGT remains dedicated to his development and has clear goals for the future. The letter concludes by saying that CGT continues to show consistency, accountability and personal growth.
25During the summer of 2024 and again this summer, CGT completed a paid co-op program at the CRSD helping to run their summer camp. Ms. Salad notes that CGT showed reliability, a strong work ethic and a positive attitude during his participation in this program.
26CGT was recently accepted for another CRSD program designed to build employment skills and includes a 12-week paid job placement.
27Further, CGT has been participating in psychotherapy through the CRSD with therapist Faith Mottahedi. Ms. Mottahedi notes that CGT has been an active and open participant in therapy and has shown a strong drive to build healthier patterns in his life and achieve his goals for the future.
28The PSR author notes that CGT has paid tribute to Mr. Hamam by making positive changes in his life. He expressed similar feelings in his letter to me. His mother has noted an overall improvement in CGT’s behaviour.
29CGT has been back in the community consistently since March 2025. Over these last seven months, CGT’s progress continues to move in a positive direction. There is still room for improvement. What jumped out to me is that CGT needs to engage more consistently with all the supports open to him, including his probation officer.
Position of the Parties
30The Crown is seeking a 3-year custody and supervision order broken down as 2 years in custody and 1 year of community supervision, followed by 6 months probation. They submit that the custodial portion should be 16 months going forward from today given that CGT has spent the equivalent of 8 months in custody assuming I grant a 1.5:1 credit for the time served.
31The defence submits that an appropriate sentence for CGT is an 18-month custody and supervision order broken down as 8 months in custody and 10 months on community supervision. The defence asks me to credit CGT’s 160 days in custody at a rate of 1.5:1 resulting in 8 months time served. Considering this, the defence submits that CGT should receive a sentence of 1 day in custody and 10 months community supervision going forward. The defence proposes that the custody and supervision order be followed by 18 months probation.
32Crown and defence agree that, pursuant to paragraph 42(2)(o) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), a custody and supervision order for manslaughter can be divided in any manner the Court deems appropriate so long as the community supervision portion of the sentence follows the custodial portion.1
33Crown and defence also made submissions on the application of the rule against multiple convictions in R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729. I’ll address this issue first before moving on to consider the appropriate sentence.
Multiple Convictions
34I found CGT guilty of unlawful act manslaughter with arson being the unlawful act. I also found him guilty of arson causing bodily harm. The issue is whether the rule in Kienapple bars convictions for both manslaughter and arson causing bodily harm. This rule prevents convictions for two offences when there is both a legal and factual nexus between the offences.2
35There is clearly a factual nexus between manslaughter and arson causing bodily harm in this case because both offences arise from the same conduct by CGT; namely his participation in the arson.
36Where the parties disagree is whether there is a legal nexus between the offences. In resolving the issue, it is helpful to start by considering the purpose of the rule. As I understand the purpose, it is to prevent an accused from suffering the injustice of multiple convictions for a single legal wrong committed within the same act.3
37In R. v. Prince, 1986 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1986] S.C.J. No. 63, the Supreme Court emphasized that the framework for determining a legal nexus had to be applied in a way that remained focused on the purpose of the rule as I have described it. In particular, if two offences protect different societal interests, then the rule in Kienapple will not apply to bar convictions for both.4
38Even though arson was the unlawful act supporting the manslaughter finding in this case, I find that arson causing bodily harm and manslaughter protect different societal interests. Manslaughter is designed to protect life by proscribing conduct that causes the loss of life. CGT’s conduct resulted in Mr. Hamam’s death, and, on this basis, he was found guilty of manslaughter.
39Arson, on the other hand, is designed to protect a different societal interest, namely property. The very definition of arson is causing damage to property by fire or explosion either intentionally or recklessly. CGT’s conduct satisfied this definition. Although he was found guilty of arson causing bodily harm, Parliament has criminalized arson even when no bodily harm or endangerment to life occurs.5 Although the focus of these proceedings was, quite rightly, on the loss of life, CGT’s conduct in committing arson also caused extensive damage to property.
40By criminalizing arson causing bodily harm or endangering life, Parliament has simply said that arson will be treated more seriously where, in addition to property damage through fire, it also results in bodily harm. Adding the protection from harm as a societal goal to this aggravated form of arson does not mean that the offence ceases to also have the protection of property as a separate goal. It does not fundamentally change the definition of arson which is about the destruction of property.6
41Therefore, while there is some overlap in the offences, by committing manslaughter and arson causing bodily harm CGT has committed two different legal wrongs directed at protecting two different societal interests. Therefore, the rule in Kienapple does not apply to bar a conviction for arson causing bodily harm.
Sentencing Principles under the YCJA
42Sentencing a young person under the YCJA is a fundamentally different exercise than sentencing an adult under the provisions of the Criminal Code. While there are some similarities, the sentencing regimes are founded on different values and principles. In particular, the sentencing provisions of the YCJA are built around a presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability for young persons.7
43The statement of principles in section 3 of the Act emphasizes measures designed to promote rehabilitation, reintegration, and fair and proportionate accountability commensurate with the greater dependency and reduced maturity of young persons, all with a view to ensuring the protection of the public.
44The following specific purposes and principles of sentencing are outlined in the YCJA.
38 (1) The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.
(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the principles set out in section 3 and the following principles:
(a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;
(b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;
(c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence;
(d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons;
(e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must
(i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1),
(ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and
(iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community;
(e.1) if this Act provides that a youth justice court may impose conditions as part of the sentence, a condition may be imposed only if
(i) the imposition of the condition is necessary to achieve the purpose set out in subsection 38(1),
(ii) the young person will reasonably be able to comply with the condition, and
(iii) the condition is not used as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures; and
(f) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence may have the following objectives:
(i) to denounce unlawful conduct, and
(ii) to deter the young person from committing offences.
(3) In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account
(a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence;
(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable;
(c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community;
(d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence;
(e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and
(f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section.
45In R. v. O.A, 2007 ONCA 144, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that accountability and meaningful consequences under subsection 38(1) are not the same as rehabilitation and reintegration. Accountability is like retribution in the adult sentencing context. This means that to achieve accountability, the Court must impose a sentence that is an appropriate punishment considering the moral blameworthiness of the young person, the harm caused by the offence and the extent to which the offence is a departure from societal values.8
46While not synonymous, the plain wording of the purpose of sentencing in subsection 38(1) also makes it clear that these concepts are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they are very much interrelated. Accountability is achieved through just sanctions which are in turn designed to promote the rehabilitation and reintegration of the young person. I take the language of the Court of Appeal in O.A. to be saying that the sentencing objectives in the YCJA are not entirely offender-centric but rather are also designed to reflect broader societal values.
47Further, while proportionality is listed alongside other principles in subsection 38(2), the incorporation of fair and proportionate accountability as a guiding principle in section 3 of the Act tells me that proportionality is a central tenet when it comes to sentencing a young person as it is when sentencing an adult.
48Beyond paragraphs 38(2)(d)(e) and (e.1), other provisions of the Act emphasize the principle of restraint. Custody is to be used as a last resort. 9
49Finally, while paragraph 38(2)(f) permits a court to consider the objectives of denunciation and the individual deterrence on the young person, these objectives are subordinate to the principles of accountability, rehabilitation and reintegration.
Analysis
50I begin my analysis by applying the factors in subsection 38(3) of the YCJA.
Degree of Participation by the Young Person in the Commission of the Offence
51Even though the precise role of each young person was not established at trial, my findings at trial make it clear that CGT was an active participant in the arson. Over and above carrying the gas to the scene, I found that the three young men were acting in concert together to commit the arson. Further, while I cannot determine the precise degree of CGT’s involvement in the planning, I do find that that CGT obviously had some involvement in the planning. The three young men attended together. They proceeded directly to 384(a) Booth. The arson was carried out swiftly. CGT carried gas to the scene which, by itself, makes out his involvement in the planning.
The Harm Done to Victims and Whether it was Intentional or Reasonably Foreseeable
52CGT’s conduct contributed to the loss of a young life. Mr. Hamam had not even begun life as an adult. His death is the loss of a valued friend and family member. The harm could not be greater. While Mr. Hamam’s family ultimately elected not to provide a victim impact statement, which is completely understandable, the degree of their loss is incomprehensible to most. The impact is profound. Their lives are forever changed.
53In terms of intent or foreseeability of harm, I note that the offence of manslaughter can be committed in a wide variety of circumstances. Some manslaughter offences just pass the bar for criminalizing negligence. Others approach the intent for murder. In this case, while risk of serious bodily harm was entirely foreseeable due to the inherent danger in this arson, the specific harm that resulted, namely the loss of a life, was not intended. While the arson was a violent act because it resulted in Mr. Hamam’s death, this was not a scenario where CGT formed an intention to direct violence at any person let alone Mr. Hamam. The facts in this case are somewhat unique in that Mr. Hamam himself was a participant in the arson. He was, in essence, an unindicted co-conspirator of CGT. This does not make the loss of life any less serious. It does mean however that CGT bore no ill will toward Mr. Hamam. For all these reasons, I find that CGT’s conduct falls in the middle of the spectrum in terms of blameworthiness for manslaughter.
Reparations made by CGT to the Victim or to the Community
54CGT has not made any direct reparations to Mr. Hamam’s family. This is through no fault of CGT’s given the no contact condition in place.
Time Spent in Detention as a Result of the Offence
55CGT has spent a total of 160 days in custody since the offence. While there is no fixed rule for how pre-sentence custody is to be apportioned, the case authorities refer to 1.5:1 as a starting point. I see no reason to depart from that starting point in this case. Therefore, I consider CGT’s pre-sentence custody to equal 240 days or approximately 8 months. It should be noted that these 8 months were served in a secure youth custody facility.
56While CGT continued to participate in various programs while in custody, he was involved in some incidents of violence as well.
Previous Findings of Guilt
57CGT had no previous findings of guilt at the time of the offences before me were committed. Therefore, I treat him as a first offender for sentencing.
58CGT committed the offence of being in a motor vehicle knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner in June 2023, just prior to the offences before me. He received a conditional discharge in February 2024.
59CGT breached his bail conditions in November 2024, after he had turned 18. He left home for several hours before returning on his own accord after a particularly difficult day in court during this trial. He pleaded guilty before me in August of this year and received an adult conditional discharge. The offences before me are CGT’s first conviction for a violent offence and his first conviction for which there will be a period of custody.
Other Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
60Most of the aggravating factors have already been addressed in applying the factors in subsection 38(3) of the YCJA. They are the devastating loss of life and impact that flows from it, as well as my finding that CGT was an active participant in this planned arson, the danger of which would have been obvious to any person. I note also that this arson occurred in an area where residences were nearby, and there was potential for even greater loss.
61In term of mitigating factors, it is significant that CGT comes before the Court with no prior youth record. Further, this will be his first custodial sentence. These facts make the principle of restraint even more important in determining a fit sentence.
62CGT has spent a significant period on bail with strict conditions. In certain circumstances, a court has discretion to treat this as a mitigating factor in sentencing when the circumstances of bail amount to a punishment. I decline to do that in this case. This is because, although CGT was bound by strict conditions, he breached the conditions in November 2024. Even though this was far from the most serious breach imaginable, I find that to give CGT mitigation on his sentence for time spent on a bail order that he breached is a bridge too far.
63However, that does not mean that CGT’s time on bail is irrelevant to me in sentencing him. The fact remains that, except for the breach in November 2024, CGT has followed strict bail conditions for 2 years. More than that, he has made progress during his time on bail. For this reason, overall, I view CGT’s time on bail as a positive indicator in terms of his rehabilitative prospects. I note that most recently, he has been back in the community for 7 months without incident.
64Ms. O’Doherty asks me to apply the methodology set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris 2021 ONCA 680 for considering the impact of anti-black racism in determining a fit sentence for CGT.
65The Court of Appeal in Morris acknowledged the obvious reality of anti-black racism in Canadian society and Canadian institutions, including the criminal justice system. The Court held that while social context evidence relating to race (in this case in the form of the IRCA report) is not relevant to measuring the seriousness of the offence, the evidence can be of assistance to sentence judges when it relates to the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or the evidence assists the court in weighing the principles and objectives of sentencing. The Court of Appeal endorsed a generous gateway for the admission of this type of evidence. 10
66Morris held that an offender need not establish a causal link between the offence and the negative effects of anti-black racism before these effects can be treated as mitigating. However, the Court held that there must be some connection between the effects of anti-black racism and the offence before the court, either in relation to the offender’s level of responsibility or as relevant to how the Court should balance the various sentencing principles at play in the case.11
67I have carefully reviewed the contents of the IRCA report. It was detailed and informative. It helpfully explained the impact of various social constraints that CGT has experienced as a black youth. These constraints are interrelated and include the following:
CGT witnessed intimate partner violence and other family instability at a young age, leading to the break-up of his parents and his leaving his home community in Nova Scotia;
CGT spent time living in shelters with his mother and sister;
CGT was raised by a single mother. CGT has grown up without a father and has had few, if any, other positive male role models in his life;
CGT’s family has faced economic disadvantage. This has resulted in the family moving frequently and CGT changing schools frequently. This has led to instability and a negative impact on CGT’s sense of belonging and ability to form lasting connections;
Most of the areas that CGT has lived in during his youth have been areas where crime is more prevalent. This includes the community he lived in at the time of the offences and continues to live in;
In my view, the lack of a positive father figure in his life, the fact that his mother was solely responsible for providing for the family, the frequent upheaval with changing schools, and living in high crime neighborhoods all made CGT more susceptible to forming connections with negative peers;
CGT has experienced some overt instances of racism in his life. Further, the IRCA report highlights some impacts of systemic racism including in the school system; and
CGT has experienced mental health challenges. The report notes that there is an added stigma in the black community toward those who seek mental health support. Finally, there is a relative lack of access to mental health services for black youth. The reports and letters I received indicate that there is a lack of easily accessible services in CGT’s current community.
68CGT’s case is not one where there is a direct and obvious causal link between the offences and these social constraints influenced by racism. This isn’t even a case like Morris where the connection between Mr. Morris’ gun possession and the racism he had experienced was more direct. However, as noted, such a causal link is not required. In this case, I agree with the comments in the IRCA report, that the above constellation of factors, probably placed CGT in circumstances and an environment that made him more susceptible to criminality, including the offences before the Court. This is because, many of the above factors are commonly recognized risk factors for criminality. The difference, and where the principles in Morris come into play, is that CGT was more likely to experience these social constraints and face systemic barriers to overcoming them because he is black.
69To this extent, I find that the social context evidence in this case is mitigating in that it diminishes CGT’s blameworthiness for the offences somewhat, albeit to a limited degree. I want to be clear to CGT that these circumstances do not excuse his conduct. It would be wrong for him to come away thinking this. CGT is responsible for his actions and will be held accountable. However, the reality is that CGT has faced challenges in his life because he is black that partly explain how he came before me today.
70What I learned from the IRCA report of CGT’s experience as a black youth also informs how I apply the sentencing principle in this case, particularly when I consider these constraints together with the progress he has shown in the community recently. This all tends to militate further in favour of a sentence that achieves accountability in a way that best promotes CGT’s continued successful reintegration in the community.
71This brings me to what is the most significant mitigating factor in this case; the efforts CGT has made toward self-improvement since the offences.
72CGT has participated actively in psychotherapy and has made gains. He remains connected with the CRSD and Ms. Salad and continues to benefit from programs and placements there. He enjoys the support of his mother and family. His mother is a positive role model in his life. He has made efforts to connect with more positive peers. As noted, but for a breach in November 2024, he has demonstrated an ability to comply with conditions while progressing in the community. Finally, I accept CGT’s word when he tells me that this tragedy has opened his eyes to the need to make changes in his life.
73The road has not been perfect. CGT needs to engage more consistently with the supports open to him in the community, including his probation officer. However, overall, he has made significant progress and there is reason to be optimistic about CGT’s future if he continues to work hard.
Conclusion on the Appropriate Sentence
74The offences of manslaughter and arson causing bodily harm are custody eligible offences under paragraph 39(1)(a) of the YCJA because they meet the definition of a violent offence under the Act. Further, the manslaughter offence is custody eligible under paragraph 39(1)(d) of the Act. Given the circumstances of that offence, most importantly the loss of life, a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the sentencing principles set out in the YCJA. A custodial sentence is required to address those principles.
75However, I find that, considering the equivalent of 8 months that CGT has already served in secure custody, a sentence of one day in open custody followed by 16 months of conditional supervision in the community is a meaningful consequence that is sufficient to hold him accountable. This will be followed by 18 months of probation.
76In my view, the imposition of further custody at this point would only be to further the goal of denunciation which is an optional sentencing objective that must remain subordinate to the principles of accountability, rehabilitation and reintegration. While denunciation is an appropriate sentencing objective in this case given the loss of life, I find that denunciation has already been largely achieved considering the time that CGT has already served in custody. In addition, the sentence going forward from today will continue to restrict CGT’s liberty.
77Therefore, I find that there is no benefit in reincarcerating CGT when it comes to meeting the sentencing principles in the YCJA. In fact, I find that putting him back in custody at this stage only risks undermining the principles that are at the heart of the YCJA sentencing scheme, namely rehabilitation, reintegration and accountability. 12
78In explaining why reincarceration would work against the principles in the YCJA in CGT’s case, I adopt the language of the sentencing judge in R. v. B.W.P. as referenced in the SCC’s decision in R. v. B.W.P.; B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27:
The purpose of sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is to provide just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the offender and promote his rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public. That rehabilitation and reintegration has been well underway since BWP's release from custody in December 2001.
Except for one misstep for which he paid dearly by serving a period of time in custody while awaiting disposition, his march towards becoming a law-abiding member of the community has been most positive. ...
Separating BWP from society as urged by the Crown will in my opinion not address the long-term protection of the public as envisioned by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. However, allowing him to build on the progress he has made since his release from custody would meet that goal.13
79This same reasoning applies directly to CGT. His rehabilitation and reintegration in the community are well underway. He has been back in the community for seven months without incident. He is making significant progress in the community. Allowing him to continue with this progress will promote the long-term protection of the public. Disrupting this progress by placing him back in custody could have the opposite effect.
80The Crown relies heavily on the principle of parity in arguing that CGT’s sentence should be the same as YF’s sentence. YF received a sentence of 18 months probation with the warrant of committal reflecting that he had served the equivalent of 755 days pre-sentence custody. It was a sentence of time served jointly recommended by counsel.
81Parity is an enumerated sentencing principle in the YCJA. Parity operates in tandem with the other principles of sentencing in the YCJA to promote a proportionate sentence.
82Therefore, while parity must be considered, my focus at this point is ensuring that the sentence that I impose for CGT is a proportionate and fit sentence for him considering all the principles in the Act. As the Supreme Court of Canada observed in R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31, “the principle of parity does not preclude disparity where warranted by the circumstances, because of the principle of proportionality”.14
83CGT and YF committed the same offence. They were equal participants. However, their personal circumstances were not the same based on the evidence before me at each sentence proceeding.
84First, while YF made some positive gains while in custody, CGT’s efforts toward rehabilitation in the community have been far more substantial. I am mindful that YF’s opportunities were limited because he was in custody. But again, my focus at this point is on deciding an appropriate sentence for CGT based on his circumstances.
85Second, in CGT’s case I have the benefit of the IRCA report which sheds light on how factors tied to his race have contributed to him coming before the court. I have considered this evidence and concluded that it is mitigating. While YF may have very well faced the same barriers on account of his race, I did not have this type of detailed evidence before me when I sentenced him.
86Third, at the time of sentencing, CGT was out of custody and YF was in custody. This is an important difference that cannot be ignored. In sentencing CGT, I need to consider the relative impact of reincarcerating him and whether the potential disruption to his reintegration in the community is nevertheless consistent with the principles of sentencing, in particular proportionality. These same considerations were not present in sentencing YF. In sentencing YF, I arrived at the conclusion that the time that he had served in custody was sufficient to meet the principles of sentencing such that further custody was not warranted. The sentence going forward was 18 months of probation.15
87CGT, would you please stand up. CGT, I consider the fact that you have served 160 days in secure custody. I credit you at 1.5 days for every day you served in custody and, therefore, I consider your time in custody to equal 240 days or approximately 8 months. Your record will show that you served 240 days in custody for manslaughter.
88Your sentence going forward from today for manslaughter is a custody and supervision order broken down as one day in open custody followed by 16 months of conditional supervision in the community.
89During your conditional supervision in the community, you must follow certain mandatory conditions. They are as follows:
(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(b) appear before the Youth Justice Court when required by the court to do so;
(c) report to the provincial director immediately on release, and then be under the supervision of the provincial director or a person designated by the Youth Justice Court;
(d) inform the provincial director immediately on being arrested or questioned by the police;
(e) report to the police, or any named individual, as instructed by the provincial director;
(f) advise the provincial director of the young person’s address of residence on release and after release report immediately to the clerk of the Youth Justice Court or the provincial director any change
(i) in that address,
(ii) in the young person’s normal occupation, including
employment, vocational or educational training and volunteer work,
(iii) in the young person’s family or financial situation, and
(iv) that may reasonably be expected to affect the young person’s
ability to comply with the conditions of the order;
(g) Do not own, possess or have the control of any weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device or explosive substance, except as authorized by the order; and
(h) comply with any reasonable instructions that the provincial director considers necessary in respect of any condition of the conditional supervision in order to prevent a breach of that condition or to protect society.
90In addition to the mandatory conditions, you must follow these additional conditions during the 16-month period of conditional supervision:
a) Reside at an address approved of by the provincial director;
b) For the first two months of this order, you are to remain within your place of residence or on the property of your residence at all times except;
i. For medial emergencies involving you or a member of your immediate family;
ii. For travelling directly to or from and while at school, work or any other program approved of by the provincial director;
iii. While in the company of your mother; or
iv. For the purpose of complying with any other term of this order;
c) Following the first two months of the order, for the next six months of the order, you will be inside your place of residence between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. except;
i. For medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family; or
ii. With the prior written approval of the provincial director.
d) Attend school regularly and/or make reasonable efforts to obtain and maintain suitable employment;
e) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the provincial director and complete them to the satisfaction of the provincial director;
f) You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable the provincial director to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
g) You shall provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or programs as directed;
h) Do not contact or communicate in any way directly or indirectly by any physical, electronic or other means with YF;
i) Do not contact or communicate directly with the immediate family members of Hussein Hamam. You may have indirect communication with the family members of Hussein Hamam through the provincial director for the purpose of writing them a letter of apology only with their prior consent given in advance to the provincial director;
j) Do not associate or communicate in any way, or be in the company of anyone known to you to have a criminal record or youth court record except members of your immediate family, except as may be necessary during the course of employment or educational, vocational or other programs approved of by the provincial director or except with the prior written approval of the provincial director;
k) Do not to possess any incendiary devices or material.
91CGT, I caution you that if you breach any of the conditions of this period of conditional supervision, the supervision will be suspended, and you will be brought back before me. If I find you breached any of the conditions, I can order that you serve the remaining time on your conditional supervision order in custody.
92Following your conditional supervision, you will be placed on probation for 18 months. The conditions of probation are as follows:
(a) Appear before the court when required to do so by the court;
(b) Report to a youth worker within 2 days of the end of your conditional supervision and after that at all times and places directed by the youth worker or anyone designated by the youth worker to assist in supervising you;
(c) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your youth worker and complete them to the satisfaction of your youth worker;
(d) Sign any release of information forms as will enable your youth worker to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
(e) Provide proof of your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or programs as directed;
(f) Do not contact or communicate in any way directly or indirectly by any physical, electronic or other means with YF;
(g) Do not contact or communicate directly with the immediate family members of Hussein Hamam. You may have indirect communication with the family members of Hussein Hamam through your youth worker for the purpose of writing them a letter of apology, only with their prior consent given in advance to the youth worker;
(h) Do not associate or communicate in any way, or be in the company of anyone known to you to have a criminal record or youth court record except members of your immediate family, except as may be necessary during the course of employment or educational, vocational or other programs approved of by your youth worker or except with the prior written approval of your youth worker;
(i) Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example, but not restricted to: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person);
(j) Do not possess any incendiary devices or material.
93I caution you that if you fail to follow your probation conditions, you can be charged with the crime of breach of probation and, if convicted, sentenced to jail.
94The sentence of one day in open custody, 16 months of conditional supervision in the community, followed by 18 months probation will also be imposed on the offence of arson causing bodily harm. It will run concurrently with the sentence on the manslaughter.
95On the remaining offence of possessing incendiary material, there will be a sentence of 18 months probation to run concurrently and on the same terms as the probation order imposed on the manslaughter offence.
96On the offence of manslaughter, I order that CGT provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
97Also on the manslaughter offence, there will be a stand-alone weapons prohibition for 2 years under section 51(1) of the YCJA. During that period, CGT will be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance.
Released: October 24, 2025
Signed: Justice Michael Boyce
Footnotes
- R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27 at paras 42-45
- See R. v. Prince, 1986 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1986] S.C.J. No. 63
- Ibid., at para. 24
- Ibid., at para. 39. See also R. v. R.K., 2005 CanLII 21092 (ON CA), [2005] OJ No. 2434 at paras 38-39
- See Section 434 of the Criminal Code
- I draw support for my conclusion by noting that the offence of arson causing bodily harm is contained in Part XI of the Code which is titled – Willful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Property. It lives there with several other offences geared toward the protection from damage to, and interference with, property.
- R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23 at para 3
- See R. v. O.A, 2007 ONCA 144 at paras 46-49
- See Subsections 39(2)-39(9) of the Act
- R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at paras 1 and 13
- Ibid., at paras 96-97
- For a similar chain of reasoning, see R. v. D.L. (No. 3), 2005 ONCJ 386 at para 31
- R. v. B.W.P.; B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27 at para 9
- R. v. L.M., 2008 SCC 31 at para 36
- It should be noted here that while pre-sentence custody must be considered in fashioning a sentence, it does not form part of the sentence itself. See R. v. Mathieu, 2008 SCC 21 at paras 17-18