ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
AHMAD NAZER
Before Justice André Chamberlain
Heard on October 3 and 10. 2025
Reasons for Sentence Read in Court on March 6, 2026
Reasons for Sentence Released on March 11, 2026
Anjali Rajan & Alice Bradstreet counsel for the Crown
Melissa Yang counsel for the accused Ahmad Nazer
1Ahmad Kayhan Nazer pleaded guilty to two charges after a preliminary hearing, having re-elected to be tried before me in the Ontario Court of Justice. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts to support the findings of guilt on the counts of break and enter (s. 348), and theft of a motor vehicle (s. 333.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Agreed Statement of Facts
2At approximately 2:00 p.m. on October 18, 2023, Mr. Nazer, accompanied by Mr. Tariq Mansour and another man, attended an address at […] Parkview Avenue in Toronto. Mr. Nazer was driving a stolen red BMW with Ontario licence plate CFHD 949. They went to the location to steal a different vehicle. The stolen red BMW was parked on the street in front of the house, and Mr. Mansour and the other male exited the vehicle, while Mr. Nazer remained inside the red BMW as the getaway driver.
3Mr. Mansour and the other man attempted to open the door of a 2022 Audi SQ5 with Ontario licence plate CVLC 144, parked in the driveway. They then approached the front door of the home and looked inside. The men soon after left the home in the stolen red BMW driven by Mr. Nazer.
4Mr. Nazer then drove the vehicle to 2452 Sheppard Avenue East, to a Food Basics Plaza. The BMW circled the lot and then parked across from a grey Lexus. Mr. Mansour and the other male exited the BMW and approached the Lexus. Mr. Mansour attempted to place his hands around the front driver's side wheel well of the Lexus, while the other man stood nearby. The men then left the Lexus and got into the red BMW. Mr. Mansour was holding a small black box with a white wire attached. The red BMW stopped outside 133 Norton Avenue, where the other man exited the front passenger seat and ran to a black BMW X3M. The man then returned to the red BMW and entered it.
5At approximately 3:15 p.m., the red BMW driven by Mr. Nazer returned to […] Parkview Avenue. Mr. Mansour and the other male walked up the stairs to […] Parkview, carrying a rock from the flower bed. However, due to pedestrian traffic, they retreated to the BMW. At around 3:19 p.m., the same two males returned and threw a large stone through the front glass door of the home, shattering it. Mr. Mansour and the other male entered the house. They approached the victim, Kian Sadi, in the living room and demanded the keys to his 2022 Audi SQ5, which was parked in the driveway. One of the males pulled a small knife from the front pocket of his sweatshirt and held it by his side while again demanding the keys. At the same time, the males noticed the victim's keychain on a living room ledge, quickly grabbed the keys, and fled through the front door. Mr. Mansour and the other male then entered the victim's Audi SQ5 and left together with the red BMW driven by Mr. Nazer. At that time, there was pedestrian traffic in the area.
6Members of Mobile Support Services (MSS) with the Toronto Police Service (TPS) tracked the stolen vehicle operated by Mr. Nazer, specifically the red BMW with licence plate CFHD 949. Several officers from the MSS team observed the red BMW from 2:02 p.m. onwards and monitored the home invasion at […] Parkview Avenue. After the home invasion, TPS called for a takedown. Police officers eventually lost track of the stolen 2022 Audi but followed Mr. Nazer and the red BMW to the area of […] Crockamhill Drive in Toronto. At that point, the vehicle was stationary. Two officers, using their vehicles, boxed in Mr. Nazer in the stolen red BMW to prevent his escape.
7Mr. Nazer exited from the driver's side, prompting a foot chase. The two officers caught up to him. Mr. Nazer resisted arrest, causing both officers to use appropriate force to gain control. During the struggle, he sustained a black eye. He was advised of his right to counsel and cautioned. He was then transported to 43 Division, where he was held pending a Show Cause hearing.
8Following Mr. Nazer's arrest, officers from the Forensic Identification Services (FIS) seized and searched the red BMW. Inside the vehicle, they found the lawful owner's driver's licence. Police also discovered a large brick in the front passenger-side footwell.
9Addendum: Ahmad Nazer denies any knowledge of the small knife used against the victim but admits that there was violent intent to gain entry and obtain the keys to the motor vehicle. The violent intent was evidenced by the large brick found on the floor of the stolen BMW he was driving, as they searched for places to break in, as they did in this case by throwing a large stone through the front door window.
10Ahmad Nazer also denies knowing that the plainclothes officers were police when he first fled.
Position of the Parties
11The Crown contends that Ahmad Nazer played a significant role in these offences. He served as the getaway driver during a violent home invasion and vehicle theft. When police boxed him in his vehicle, he tried to escape and had to be apprehended by force. The actions of these individuals, including visiting the home earlier in the day, scouting other locations to observe vehicles, and returning to the target address, demonstrate deliberate planning and execution of these violent crimes.
12The Crown cites statistics showing a significant increase in auto thefts in the province and Toronto, with numbers more than doubling from 2020 to 2023. They stress that such home invasions have been common in the Greater Toronto Area for some time, and that a strong message of deterrence and denunciation must be communicated. They propose a total sentence of 4 years.
13Ahmad Nazer’s counsel argues that the mitigating circumstances related to Mr. Nazer’s background are significant enough to warrant a sentence in the higher reformatory range and requests that I impose that as a conditional sentence he can serve within the community.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
14The Criminal Code of Canada at section 718.2, states:
A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender
15The aggravating and mitigating factors encompass elements of Ahmad Nazer’s background, the nature of his crimes, the timing of his guilty plea, and any other evidence presented at this sentencing hearing. This also includes legal guidance from the Criminal Code, such as section 348.1, and directives from higher courts regarding specific aspects of this case that I must consider. Some of the aggravating circumstances include:
(1) This was a planned and organized crime. It was not an impulsive or opportunistic theft of a vehicle. It was part of a sophisticated theft ring operating across multiple locations, although the only evidence linking Ahmad Nazer is that he served as the getaway driver in this case.
(2) The parties targeted multiple locations while seeking additional high-end vehicles.
(3) The parties did not hesitate to resort to violence when faced with resistance. They used aggressive methods to break into the home, throwing large rocks and stones through the glass doors to gain entry.
(4) Section 348.1 clearly states that using violence during a break and enter into a home is an aggravating factor, whether or not the parties knew the home was occupied or were reckless about its occupancy.
(5) They intentionally concentrated on high-value vehicles.
(6) The vehicle Mr. Nazer was driving was a stolen luxury vehicle that enabled these additional criminal acts.
(7) The impact on the victim is recognized, although he chose not to submit a Victim Impact Statement. His demeanour during his statement to officers on a body-worn camera indicates that the incident visibly disturbed him.
16In mitigation:
(1) Ahmad Nazer entered guilty pleas to the two charges before me following the completion of the preliminary hearing. It may not be the earliest of pleas, but he receives credit for saving the parties from testifying at trial and for the resources saved.
(2) He was 23 years old at the time of the offence, still regarded as a young adult under the law.
(3) He has no criminal record.
(4) Besides the pleas, his personal reflection statement shows genuine remorse for his actions.
(5) His difficult childhood, marked by a terminally ill sibling and the resulting loss for Mr. Nazer and his family, indicates reduced moral blameworthiness.
(6) He is engaged in ongoing rehabilitation efforts through therapy and school enrollment. His rehabilitative prospects appear promising.
(7) Ahmad Nazer benefits from a supportive community, as shown by numerous letters of support.
Background of Ahmad Nazer
17Ahmad Nazer was the second of three children. He was born in 1999; his older brother was three years his senior, and his younger sister was born in 2009. He was raised by both of his parents. His mother worked in a daycare, and his father owned a pizza shop. Currently, his father works in construction.
18Mr. Nazer’s older brother was born with bone cancer, and his illness, unsurprisingly, consumed the family. His brother was Ahmad Nazer’s best friend, and the family spent many hours at the hospital as they adapted to the care and treatments his brother needed to fight the cancer.
19In 2010, his brother was admitted to hospital for surgery and passed away shortly thereafter. As stated in the Pre-Sentence Report, the death of their eldest child “broke” his parents for several years, and, coupled with the need to care for his infant younger sister, Ahmad Nazer’s parents became unable to parent him in any meaningful way. He spent a lot of time with extended family, mainly grandparents and aunts, who acted as substitute parents.
20It goes without saying that this was a time when Mr. Nazer would have been coping with significant grief himself, having lost his older brother, whom he regarded as his best friend and who, in many ways, was the heart and focus of the family for much of Ahmad Nazer’s life. He had to handle that loss and, in effect, lost his parents for a period of time during that process.
21During his middle school years, Ahmad Nazer began to display behavioural issues, getting into fights with other students and facing suspension because of his actions. Despite this, he appeared to perform well academically throughout high school, even while associating with negative peer groups.
22Ahmad Nazer met his current partner, Ms. Aziz, in 2019 and got engaged in 2022. They separated in 2023, which led to a series of troubling decisions, some of which resulted in the current charges before the Court.
23Mr. Nazer recently began therapy with a registered psychotherapist to manage his anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. He also attributes his life improvement to reuniting with his fiancée, Ms. Aziz, and they have since married.
24Ahmad Nazer is physically active and goes to the gym daily; he plays soccer with friends a few times a month. He also regularly attends a place of worship. Additionally, he has started an online education program in office administration. He currently runs a business with a friend that offers residential snow clearing and plans to expand into landscaping in the future. He also provided a letter confirming employment at Pita Land in Markham.
25Mr. Nazer reports that he does not currently use substances but admits to using cannabis and alcohol after his breakup.
26Many of his family and friends, through the Pre-Sentence Report and their letters of support submitted to the Court, spoke very highly of Ahmad Nazer and expressed shock upon learning of his offences. They describe him as a person of good character, with a kind heart, who faced difficulties as a child dealing with traumatic losses, but see him as an engaging and positive person to be around.
The Law
27The primary purpose of any sentence is to protect society and promote respect for the law, helping everyone live in fair, peaceful, and secure communities. Sanctions must align with the goals and principles outlined in the Criminal Code, including condemning illegal behaviour and its harm; deterring offenders and others from committing crimes; removing individuals from the community when necessary; rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm caused to victims or the community; and fostering a sense of responsibility and awareness of the potential harm of one's actions. These are detailed in ss. 718 and 718.2.
28I note in R. v. J.S., 2006 22101 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 2654 (C.A.), that the Court of Appeal commented on the harmful and pernicious nature of home invasions at paragraph 34.
[34] There is also widespread agreement in the authorities that such offences are very serious because they represent a violation [page520] of the sanctity of the home and of the sense of security people feel when in their homes -- highly cherished values in our society -- and because they are frequently perpetrated against vulnerable individuals. As Nordheimer J. observed, in R. v. H. (P.), supra, at para. 72:
Home invasions are particularly threatening to individuals, because such robberies strike at the fundamental and natural desire and expectation that every person has, that is, to feel safe and secure in their own homes. Whatever may happen in the outside world, people have an innate feeling that their homes are their one inviolate sanctuary.
29The Crown cited several cases addressing sentencing ranges in similar circumstances. R. v. Wright remains the leading case on sentencing for home invasions. The broad spectrum of dispositions in these cases was explained at paragraph 23 of the appeal judgment.
23 The cases to which we have been referred, and which my own research has uncovered, reflect a gamut of sentencing dispositions in "home invasion" cases from as low as four or five years, to as high as eleven to thirteen years — with the suggestion that even higher sentences may be reserved for situations involving kidnapping, the infliction of serious injuries, sexual assault or death. Whether a "range" of that elasticity is of much assistance to trial judges in their efforts to preserve sentencing parity for similar offences involving similar offenders — apart from signalling that a significant penitentiary jail term is generally called for — is not clear to me. The downside of attempting to articulate a range for a type of crime that can manifest itself in such a wide variety of ways, and be committed by such a wide variety of individuals, is that the "range" becomes so broad, it is virtually meaningless. Nonetheless, to the extent there can be said to be a range in home invasion cases, it would appear that the one that currently exists is the expansive one outlined above.
R. v. Wright, 2006 40975 (ON CA) at para 23.
30Ultimately, the Court sentenced Mr. Wright to eight years’ imprisonment. The accused, along with four others, carried out a home invasion targeting a small business owner's residence. Wearing disguises and armed with handguns, they forcibly confined the family, including children, and threatened harm to obtain information about the victim's business premises. The ordeal lasted about 45 minutes and caused significant emotional distress to the victims. The 27-year-old accused had prior convictions for theft and failure to appear in court, but expressed remorse and a desire to make amends. He pleaded guilty in the Superior Court of Justice. The eight-year sentence was upheld as appropriate.
31The ongoing crisis of motor vehicle thefts and home invasions has been frequently commented on, acknowledging the heavy burden it has placed on victims, community resources, and the criminal justice system: R. v. Mughal, 2025 ONCJ 386 at paras. 36-45; R. v. Casseus, 2024 ONCJ 654; and R. v. Toulouse, 2005 ONCJ 7, to cite a few.
32The Crown also provided several cases supporting its penitentiary position, some of which can be characterized as follows:
(1) R. v. Chaudhry, 2024 ONCJ 614: a crime spree across four jurisdictions resulted in pleas to 17 charges and a total sentence of 5½ years. Three years were assigned to the three break-and-enter charges and two theft of motor vehicle charges, as well as to fleeing from police, breaching a release order, and using a stolen credit card. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
(2) Mr. Chaudhry was a 20-year-old first-time offender addicted to opioids, who completed a rehab program while in custody and has a supportive family.
(3) In R. v. Drepaul, 2013 ONSC 8023, three individuals, including the accused, unlawfully entered a family home using a stolen key with the intent to commit robbery. The intruders wore masks and stole various items. During the incident, a teenage resident was confined in a bathroom after being threatened and assaulted by one of the intruders. The stolen items were later sold at a pawn shop. The accused was convicted of multiple offences, including break and enter, robbery, and unlawful confinement. The defendant was 23 at the time of the offence; he had no adult criminal record but did have a youth record that resulted in a conditional sentence. Although not the ringleader, he was responsible for unlawful confinement and robbery. The defendant was “substantially larger and stronger. He could have resisted. He did not. He was clearly a willing participant during and after the event.” (at page 14). He was sentenced to 4 ½ years.
(4) R. v. Buczel & Czeranowski, 2015 ONCJ 378. The case involves two defendants who participated in a sophisticated burglary ring targeting affluent Toronto neighbourhoods between late 2013 and mid-2014. The group broke into homes, stealing high-value items, including luxury cars, electronics, and jewellery. They conducted surveillance to ensure homes were unoccupied, used stolen or forged licence plates, and shipped some stolen vehicles overseas. The total losses from their activities often reached hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident. Buczel pleaded guilty to three break-and-enters, conspiracy to steal motor vehicles, and two counts of possession of property obtained by crime over $5000, resulting in a total sentence of four years. He was 39 years old with no criminal record. He was central to the conspiracy and was found to have a list of targeted homes and cars. His early plea and status as a first-time offender were noted.
Czeranowski pleaded guilty to six break-and-enters and conspiracy to steal motor vehicles. He received a 4½-year sentence. He has a significant related criminal record, which counteracted his lesser role in the conspiracy.
33I also raised with the parties a recent home invasion case I issued a judgment on, R. v. Bustamante-Garzon, 2025 ONCJ 515. The accused, a 22-year-old student, participated in a violent home invasion targeting a prominent artist known for his work with rare gems and pearls. The victim was assaulted, forcibly confined, and threatened with weapons while the perpetrators demanded a $140 million pearl. The suspects stole valuables worth approximately $6 million, of which $3.6 million remains unrecovered. The accused played a significant role in facilitating the break-in, restraining the victim, and preventing his escape.
34In that ruling, I emphasized the seriousness of the offence, noting the violent nature of the home invasion, the significant value of the stolen items, and the lasting harm caused to the victim. Like Mr. Nazer, Mr. Bustamante-Garzon’s mitigating factors include the accused's youth, lack of a criminal record, early guilty plea, and potential for rehabilitation. However, it was specifically aggravating that it appeared Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was brought in as the ‘muscle’ to facilitate the break-in, restrain the victim, and he prevented an attempted escape, leading to further violence. The violence inflicted on the victim was also sustained, and he was repeatedly threatened to disclose the location of significant assets. Despite not revealing their location, the parties made off with goods worth $6 million, and $3.6 million remains outstanding. Mr. Bustamante-Garzon was sentenced to 5 years less time served.
35The sentence should also address the principle of parity outlined in s.718.2(b). Parity requires consistently treating similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 SCR 424, at para 31. Judges often refer to existing cases, such as those presented to the Court in this case, to help determine the appropriate sentencing range. However, in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, the Supreme Court held at para 57:
Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered “averages”, let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case:
Even when an appellate court has established a range, it may be that a fact pattern will arise, which is sufficiently dissimilar to past decisions that the “range”, as it were, must be expanded. The fundamental point is that a “range” is not a straitjacket to the exercise of discretion of a sentencing judge (citing R. v. Keepness, 2010 SKCA 69 at para. 24).
36In other words, ranges help judges understand precedent set by other courts; however, deviating from a sentencing range where the facts differ does not constitute an error of law or an error in principle: Lacasse at para. 60.
37The defence requests that I impose a sentence at the upper end of the reformatory range and also consider a sentence to be served in the community. Section 742.1 outlines the statutory requirements for a conditional sentence order (CSO). A conditional sentence may be imposed if:
(1) The offence is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.
(2) The sentence is less than two years.
(3) Community safety is not endangered.
(4) The sentence is consistent with the principles in ss. 718–718.2.
These are statutory prerequisites. The first three are threshold conditions, while the fourth assesses appropriateness.
38In this case, the offence carries no minimum prison sentence and is not explicitly ineligible for a CSO. This indicates that Parliament has given courts discretion to impose a CSO if they determine that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger public safety and would align with the primary objectives and principles of sentencing outlined in sections 718 to 718.2. Although some offences and offenders are not eligible for a CSO under the Criminal Code, it is, strictly speaking, permitted in this situation.
39The first question is what the appropriate sentence length is in this case. Then, and only then, if the appropriate sentence in these circumstances falls within the upper reformatory range, is a conditional sentence warranted?
Analysis
40I note and apply section 348.1, which states that it was particularly aggravating that the parties either knew the premises were occupied or were reckless about the presence of the resident, Kian Sadi, when they broke into his home.
41Although Ahmad Nazer operated the stolen vehicle used to transport the others for the break and enter, he is equally culpable for the violence used to obtain the keys from the home's resident as his co-accused. The large stone on the passenger-side floorboard indicated that the parties intended to enter that or any other targeted home by violent means. His lack of knowledge about the pocketknife brandished at the victim does not exempt him from responsibility for the violence, whether done knowingly or with reckless disregard for the home's occupancy.
42The rise in home invasions and luxury vehicle thefts is acknowledged and of serious concern. The government’s focused efforts to fight this organized crime wave appear to have had some success since these crimes occurred. However, deciding appropriate sentences for those involved in these vehicle thefts and break-and-enters remains challenging.
43I also observe that many of the cases the Crown relied on, and others, such as R. v. Chaudhry, 2024 ONCJ 614; R. v. Trudel, 2017 ABCA 386; R. v. Matchee, 2019 ABCA 251; R. v. Drepaul, 2013 ONSC 8023; R. v. Buczel & Czeranowski, 2015 ONCJ 378; R. v. Moore, 2012 ONCA 763, and R. v. Bustamante-Garzon, 2025 ONCJ 515 had distinguishing features. These included extensive or related records (Trudel, Matchee, Czeranowski, Moore), significant or particularly impactful trauma on the victim (Drepaul – a teen confined in a bathroom by the accused; Trudel, assault of an elderly homeowner; Matchee, assaulting an occupant with a knife and crowbar, Bustamante-Garzon, repeatedly assaulted and threatened, had his hand and feet bound, had a cloth placed over his head, had a knife held to his throat, and scissors pressed to his leg, and he was choked), involvement in multiple similar offences against multiple targets (Chaudhry, Buczel & Czeranowski), and, finally, many cases being after trial rather than pleas (Trudel, Matchee, Drepaul).
44I am aware of the courts’ rulings on the importance of prioritizing deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. I also understand that a sentence must be tailored to reflect the individual's background. Ahmad Nazer’s age of 23 is noted; he is considered an adult legally, yet his status as a young first offender is recognized. While deterrence and denunciation remain primary objectives in these cases, general deterrence may sometimes play a lesser role.
45I also acknowledge the reduced moral culpability of a young adult coping with severe trauma. Ahmad Nazer had a challenging childhood. His parents were immigrants. His older brother, three years older, was afflicted by bone cancer, which drew the family’s focus due to the ongoing treatments and care. They were close; his brother was Ahmad’s best friend. They spent much time in hospitals and working to save his brother from a fate that ultimately caught up with them when he was about 13, and Ahmad was around 10. Their youngest sibling, a girl, was born approximately a year before his brother’s passing.
46When his brother died, combined with the loss of their oldest son and the responsibility of caring for their infant daughter, Ahmad Nazer became isolated and forgotten. Through no fault of their own, his parents’ overwhelming grief left them unable to parent this young pre-adolescent boy, who was also mourning the loss of his best friend and brother. He was left to grieve alone and spent much of his time cared for by his grandparents and aunts. He not only lost his brother but also his entire family structure and support network.
47Ahmad Nazer faced behavioural challenges at school, but he maintained good grades. He eventually found love and a healthy relationship, but when it ended, he felt lost and became involved with his co-accused, now facing the consequences.
48I also considered the plea following the preliminary hearing, perhaps not at the earliest stage, but certainly well before going to trial. The savings in resources are significant. He, and more importantly, by taking responsibility for his actions and showing genuine remorse and insight into what drove them, through his counselling and rehabilitative steps, has stepped up and is prepared to face the consequences.
49For all these reasons, I find a sentence of two years less a day appropriate in these circumstances. I am now considering whether a conditional sentence would be suitable.
50I do not deny that this analysis is more complex than it seems. Nothing prevents us from considering a conditional sentence. In my view, analyzing the risk to the public is not particularly complicated, given his rehabilitative efforts and the steps he has taken, including work, education, counselling, and fostering positive relationships with family and community to support him through these challenging times.
51However, I do not dismiss the courts’ statements regarding the importance of deterrence and denunciation. There is a need to send a clear message when imposing a sanction, one that conveys the seriousness of the offence and ensures the offender feels the impact of their actions. This also includes the effect experienced by the victim, Kian Sadi.
52I also consider that this spree was part of an organized group responsible for seven separate home invasions or attempted high-end vehicle thefts. However, I must also acknowledge that Ahmad Nazer’s involvement in that spree was limited to one incident, where he acted as the getaway driver in a stolen vehicle, transporting his co-accused as they searched for suitable targets, whether parked in public lots or, in this case, in the driveway of an innocent homeowner they encountered when his co-accused broke into his house on Parkview Avenue. I further recognize that when he was chased by plainclothes police officers in unmarked vehicles, he tried to flee and was arrested with some force. Ahmad Nazer states that he was unaware they were police officers. This detail makes little difference either way. He paid the price for that mistake through a violent arrest.
53In light of his plea, being a youthful first offender, his tragic background, and the other mitigating circumstances listed above, and while being acutely aware of the need to send a message, particularly to Ahmad Nazer about the seriousness of these offences and their impact on the community, I find that a conditional sentence can effectively deliver that message, with a longer period of house arrest than is usually imposed in cases of conditional sentences.
54Mr. Nazer’s prospects for rehabilitation are promising. A conditional sentence, which imposes extended house arrest while allowing exceptions for employment, education, counselling, and religious reasons, can address issues of deterrence and denunciation.
55Deterrence and denunciation are the main factors to consider, but the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the parameters and analysis of imposing a conditional sentence order in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61. Specifically, at para. 22:
22 The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. . . . [Emphasis added]
56I will therefore impose a sentence of 2 years less one week, with a credit of 4 days for pre-sentence custody, credited as 6 days. He will serve one year of house arrest with the usual exceptions to be determined. During the period of house arrest, he will be monitored by a GPS tracking device administered by Recovery Science. The next 6 months of his sentence shall be done under a curfew from 10 pm to 6 am with the usual exceptions, and the remaining time on statutory terms. There will be a section 109 Order for 10 years, and DNA will be ordered as it is a primary designation.
57Following his conditional sentence, he will serve a two-year probationary term, with terms to be determined.
Released: March 11, 2026
Signed: Justice André Chamberlain