ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RAMEL ALEXANDER
Before Justice K. L. Hawke
Heard on January 29 and February 4, 2026
Judgment on March 16, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on May 8, 2026
W. Gilmore counsel for the Crown
Xue M. Xu counsel for the accused Ramel Alexander
A. INTRODUCTION
1This case concerns a robbery at Downtown Pawnbrokers, in the City of Brantford, on January 22, 2025. Mr. Alexander was arrested the same day and remained in custody until he was sentenced on March 16, 2026.
2Some other parties in the robbery were arrested, others escaped and were not arrested.
3Mr. Alexander faced 15 charges:
- Attempt Murder while using firearm (re: Mr. Elliot); 2) Attempt Murder while using firearm (re: Mr. Zimmer); 3) Point Firearm (re: Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Elliott); 4) Robbery for the benefit of a criminal organization while using a firearm; 5) Weapons Dangerous (re: firearm and tire iron); 6) Assault with Weapon (re: Mr. Almond with tire iron); 7) Aggravated Assault (by wounding Mr. Almond); 8) Discharge Firearm (with intent to wound Mr. Elliott); 9) Possess Firearm no Licence (s. 91(1)); 10) Disguise with Intent (Robbery with face mask); 11) Careless use of Firearm; 12) Discharging Firearm with Intent (to wound Mr. Zimmer); 13) Possession of stolen motor vehicle; 14) Possession of Firearm knowing unauthorized (s. 92(1); 15) Fail to stop motor vehicle when pursued by police.
4It is important to note that given count #4 above, Mr. Alexander, if convicted, was facing a minimum sentence of five years, regardless of any other sentencing submissions.
5The notations on the Information suggest there were a number of lawyers who appeared on the case over time, but none of them went on the record as being retained. On August 25, 2025 a counsel was removed from the record. Ms. Abbasi’s office went on the record on October 21, 2025 and counsel from her office continued to represent Mr. Alexander until the case was completed.
6My first contact with the case was at a judicial pre-trial, on November 13, 2025, with the Crown and Ms. Abbasi plus two other lawyers representing separately charged co-defendants. As far as Mr. Alexander was concerned the case was heading toward a preliminary hearing.
7I had a second judicial pre-trial on December 9, 2025. By this point, because of discussions in the interim, between the parties, the landscape had changed regarding how the case would likely proceed. However, this was not yet settled because there had been a problem with an ‘access defence’ call and Ms. Abbasi still needed to get instructions.
8On January 29, 2026, Mr. Alexander pled guilty in my court. I consider this to have been an expeditious turn around time from December 9, given: the need to get instructions; Christmas holidays; and the fact that was I was not always scheduled in Brantford.
9Mr. Alexander pled guilty to:
Count 4 as amended: “… on or about the 22nd day of January in the year 2025 at the City of Brantford in the said Region, did rob the Downtown Pawn Brokers of jewelry contrary to Section 344 (1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.”
Count 15: “… on or about the 22nd day of January in the year 2025 at the City Brantford in the said Region, did operate a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer, and failed to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances, contrary to section 320.17 of the Criminal Code.”
10It is important to note that given amendments made to count #4, as reflected in the paragraph immediately above, Mr. Alexander, was no longer facing a minimum sentence of five years.
11Submissions were made on January 29, 2026 and the case was adjourned to February 4, 2026 for judgment. On February 4 I did not render judgment. After raising some issues with counsel, I:
Ordered a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR).
Provided two cases to counsel regarding consideration of jail conditions and pre-trial custody. The cases were, R. v. Reid1 and R. v. Gorgievski2.
Indicated that either party could obtain an updated report from Maplehurst (re: triple bunking and lock-downs). If no one chose to do so, I would estimate these numbers based on percentages from the report entered as an Exhibit on January 29, 2026.
12The case was remanded to February 13th. Court was cancelled on that date because of a power outage. On March 16, 2026, after further submissions, I sentenced Mr. Alexander. I did not give reasons on that day due to a lack of time, given the court docket.
B. THE SENTENCE
13The sentence given on March 16, 2026 was:
i) Robbery
2.5 years imprisonment (Note: This sentence was after a Duncan/Marshall reduction of 1.5 years)
There is a deduction of 1.7 years as credit for 419 days of pre-trial custody (Summers credit on a 1.5 basis)
There are 9 months and 18 days remaining to be served
Imprisonment is followed by 18 months probation
Ancillary orders: s. 109 order - 109(2)(a)(ii) 10 years and 109(2) for life; a DNA order; a non-communication order
Victim Fine Surcharge Waived
ii) Fail to Stop
3 months imprisonment current with Robbery
Victim Fine Surcharge Waived
14The reasons for this sentence follow below.
C. REASONS FOR SENTENCE
The Position of the Parties
Crown
15The Crown’s position was:
5 - 7 years jail
DNA
Section 109 order for life
Section 743 order for non-communication with three individuals
16The overall position of the Crown was premised upon the scale of the violence involved in the offence, and further that, given this level of violence, all of the mitigating factors combined should only result in a modest reduction in the sentence.
Defence
17The position of the Defence was:
- 2-3 years jail
18The overall position of the Defence is that Mr. Alexander’s role was solely that of a driver who did not know anything about the firearms nor about the violence involved. Mitigating factors include: youthful first time offender; he identifies as Black and there are Morris factors to consider; he has appropriate plans for rehabilitation; he has support in the community; and he has experienced difficult conditions while in pre-trial custody.
The Circumstances of the Offence
19Note: There is an issue regarding the possession and use of firearms by other parties to the offence. I have italicized the parts in the summary below that pertain to this issue.
20On Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. there was a robbery at Downtown Pawn Brokers, at 342 Colborne Street, in the City of Brantford.
21There is an Agreed Statement of Facts. It acknowledges the Crown’s case about what happened inside the pawn shop, while Mr. Alexander waited in a car that he was operating. There is no admission of personal knowledge about the events that took place inside the shop and there is no admission of knowledge regarding any firearm, at any time.
22The owner and operator of the pawn shop, Kevin Elliot was in the store along with two employees, J. Simmer and P. Almond.
23A total of 7 culprits entered the store. There were three vehicles associated with the comings and goings of these culprits who entered the store: a black Honda Civic; a black Dodge SUV; and a stolen silver Honda CR-V.
24Mr. Alexander operated the Honda CR-V. He arrived at the pawn shop with 4-5 masked accomplices. He remained in the vehicle and the others entered the shop.
25Initially, a (separately charged) co-accused Rich Myers entered the shop wearing a yellow turban, yellow gown and a face mask. He spoke to Kevin Elliot (owner) about wanting to see Apple iPhone devices for sale.
26During this time six males, dressed in black with hoods and masks over their faces, entered the shop. Three of these males were in possession of firearms, one being a revolver and the others were Glock style handguns.
27There was an attempt to tie Mr. Zimmer’s hands with zip ties. He attempted to fight back and he struck two of the males with a baseball bat. During the same altercation, Mr. Zimmer was shot 5 times by a male with the revolver. Mr. Zimmer was able to exit the store and he stopped someone who was driving by and he directed them to call 911.
28When the activity with Mr. Simmer started Mr. Elliot and Mr. Almond were behind a store counter. The masked males along with Rich Myers proceeded behind the counter.
29Mr. Almond then moved to the back of the shop and he was struck by one of the masked males in the head and forearm. (No weapon is mentioned.)
30Mr. Elliott had a brief struggle with the males and was taken to the ground. He was struck repeatedly with a baseball bat and a torque wrench. Also, Mr. Elliott was shot a number of times.
31The masked individuals left the store and entered the three vehicles mentioned above. Immediately after the robbery Mr. Alexander drove the Honda CRV away from the scene along with two passengers.
32Brantford Police were in the area of Elgin Street and Murray Street and observed the stolen Honda CR-V. A brief pursuit occurred, resulting in the Honda CR-V proceeding to the dead end of Ransom Street. This pursuit involved residential streets.
33Mr. Alexander, Rich Myers and a third unknown male exited the Honda and proceeded to run on foot. The police were able to bring Mr. Alexander into custody. Mr. Myers was subsequently identified and charged.
34Following a search incident to arrest, Mr. Alexander was found in possession of Infiniti ownership papers, a Honda key fob, gloves, balaclava, and clothing consistent with the robbery. His wallet and ID confirmed his identity at arrest. His cell phone was also recovered.
35Significant injuries were sustained by the shop keeper and his staff:
Mr. Elliot
Shot five times in right leg and scrotum area
Shot 2 times in his left leg
Left hand and his head were injured from multiple strikes from the bat and the wrench. Police observed mass hemorrhaging and pieces of his flesh and skull protruding from the back of his head.
Mr. Zimmer
- Shot once in abdomen, shot once in groin, and shot three times in right leg.
Mr. Almond
- Head injury with a 4-5 inch laceration across his forehead which required several stitches to close. A large circular injury to the back of his forearm.
36Mr. Elliot presented a Victim Impact Statement. The impact of the robbery involved devastating loss in every aspect of his life.
37Firstly, he was severely injured and spent three months in hospital. Once he was released from the hospital he struggled to get appropriate care and services. He continues to struggle with his physical and mental health. It is apparent that there will be permanent disabilities.
38Secondly, the event left him in financial ruin. He was unable to keep the shop going, but that did not stop the expenses. He had “0” income for the year and lived on savings. He was close to retiring and prior to the robbery he had been hoping to sell the business in September of 2025. He has been unable to do this and he identifies the robbery as the cause.
39Without meaning any disrespect to Mr. Elliot, I will focus on his non-gunshot injuries. I do not have any medical reports. In the Victim Impact Statement, Mr. Elliot reports: “I had 142 stitches in my head and a crushed skull”; “they fractured my skull with [a bar] as I tried to put my left hand over my head to protect it. The surgeons put in 9 inch pins in my left hand. I had 3 different casts for at least 6 moths. The doctors say that 70% is all my hand is going to get.”
The Circumstances of the Offender
40I struggled somewhat in writing this section because specific details about Mr. Alexander’s background are often sparse even after obtaining a PSR. I do not lay this problem at the feet of Mr. Alexander. It appears that he has been cooperative with the sentencing process, as it has been presented to him. Mr. Alexander and his mother were interviewed for the PRS. Unfortunately, Mr. Alexander’s father appears to have chosen not to respond to the Probation Officer involved in the report.
41There are a couple of things I learned by asking Mr. Alexander myself. This included his father’s address and the name of the elementary schools he attended. I will deal with the address later and I note that the schools were Pelmo Park Public School and Amesbury Middle School. Both are located in Toronto.
42Mr. Alexander was born on […], 2004. His parents separated when he was 4 years old. At this point his father assumed primary care of him. There was frequent access with his mother.
43Defence counsel told me about Mr. Alexander’s neighbourhood beginning at age 10. I do not know where he lived before then, but I assume it must have been in the catchment area of Pelmo Park Public School. This is approximately 4 km north of the neighbourhood discussed below. The school itself is tucked into the edge of the ‘basketweave' of Highway 401 and Highway 400.
44In submissions I was told he moved to his father’s current address when he was 10. Given that this has been identified as being Weston and Eglinton and given the address Mr. Alexander gave me, it is my understanding that he lived in the Mount Denis neighborhood in Toronto.
45Mount Denis is a diverse neighbourhood with lower income levels. It is part of 12 Division of the Toronto Police Service. Information publicly available on the Toronto Police Service website indicates that Mount Denis, and much of 12 Division, has struggled with a high crime rate, including issues with gun violence. Mr. Alexander’s counsel indicated that he has been exposed to such things since he was 10 and relatively recently he had a friend who was killed.
46In terms of his environment as a child, I also took a look at his elementary schools. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has a history of ranking their schools on a “Learning Opportunities Index”. The Index ranks each school based on measures of external challenges affecting student success. The school with the greatest level of external challenges is ranked number one and is described as highest on the index. The Index measures relative need and uses the same data for each school. The data includes: the median family income; the percentage of families whose income is below the low income measure; the percentage of families receiving social assistance; adults with low education; adults with university degrees and non two-parent families.
47I was able to find rankings for 2011. I think Mr. Alexander was in Grade 2 at Pelmo Park Public School at this time. I also found rankings for 2017 and I think Mr. Alexander was in Grade 8 at Amesbury Middle School at that time. Specifically,
Pelmo Park Public School 2011 ranking was 47 out of 478 elementary schools.
Amesbury Middle School 2017 ranking was 32 out of 470 elementary schools.
48I think this information provides insight into the challenging social economic circumstances of the neighbourhoods that Mr. Alexander grew up in.
49Mr. Alexander’s mother told the author of the PSR that she was concerned about the environment in Mr. Alexander’s father’s neighbourhood. She would prefer that he not live there. She indicated that area was known for criminal activity and that she had warned her son of this in the past.
50Mr. Alexander’s mother lives in Dundalk and works in Toronto. Dundalk is approximately 110 km, northwest of Mr. Alexander’s father’s home. I cannot figure out when his mother moved to Dundalk, but Mr. Alexander moved there when he was 18, and then he would go back and forth.
51Mr. Alexander’s mother also says the time in her home began increasing when Mr. Alexander was 14, however Mr. Alexander speaks of age 18. In both parent’s households there is a blended family, where Mr. Alexander has step-siblings.
52It appears that Mr. Alexander and his mother have a strong bond. He notes that she is the one who pushed him to do better. She has appeared in court in Brantford and appears to be concerned about trying to support and direct her son when he is released. She is also very concerned about his custodial conditions in the meantime.
53Returning to Mr. Alexander’s younger years, he was struck by a vehicle while riding a bicycle when he was 10 years old. He sustained a concussion. The PRS reports the following: “Ms. Cummings reported that he experienced cognitive difficulties following the injury and participated in physical and mental health therapy after the incident. Ms. Cummings further stated a financial settlement was received and that related legal proceedings remain ongoing.” (Note: I do not know what the ongoing proceedings refers to.)
54From submissions I understand Mr. Alexander attended George Harvey Collegiate Institute and Central Tech. I do not know when he moved from one to the other.
55The PSR states: “The subject reported he enjoyed school and had many friends. He furthermore relayed having positive relationships with teachers. The subject also mentioned that he had a hard time asking for help and felt if he did, he would be ridiculed by his peers. The subject stated he was informed at his last school that he had Mild Intellectual Disability (MID). The subject mentioned being suspended on one occasion for fighting.”
56Mr. Alexander apparently had some sports aspirations, but these have been curtailed due to his accident.
57Mr. Alexander finished high school in June 2022 at the age of 18. This also coincides with the move to his mother’s home. It also coincides with the end of public health measures associated with the COVID 19 pandemic. This means that the last two years of his high school education would have been significantly disrupted and that when he graduated, he, and many others, were still facing an uncertain and disrupted world.
58Since leaving school Mr. Alexander has had some part time employment including with a courier service, a donut chain and cleaning at the airport. His mother provided some financial assistance. Mr. Alexander up to the time of the offence resided with his mother but could not see a place for himself in Dundalk and he missed his peers in Toronto.
Aggravating Factors
Degree of Responsibility
59On this topic I found myself at odds with both parties.
60The Crown position was that Mr. Alexander shared equal responsibility for the level of violence involved in its entirety, and for the ensuing consequences. I think the Crown submission is overreaching, and while one cannot divide the offence itself up, it is possible to assess the degree of responsibility of any given party. I note the following:
There is no evidence, and there is no admission, that Mr. Alexander was involved in the planning of this offence. I make this observation in response to the Crown emphasizing how organized the offence was. I also raise this point to distinguish this case from R. v. Nouri, 2015 0NSC 116 (Ont. S.C.J.), relied upon by the Crown. While it is true that Ms. Nouri dropped off other culprits at a robbery scene and then left, Ms. Nouri’s role involved extensive and very creative planning. She played a central role in finding and engaging a make-up artist who created disguises for the robbers, and she gave input into these decisions. It also should be noted that Ms. Nouri’s 6 year sentence was after trial.
Most importantly, there is no evidence, and there is no admission, that Mr. Alexander had any knowledge about the possession and/or use of a firearm or firearms. Based on the case as presented, Mr. Alexander did not have any degree of responsibility for the use of firearms during the offence, or the injuries associated with them. (This includes all of the points above that were placed in italic, in the summary of the offence.)
The Crown suggests that Mr. Alexander, as a party in the offence, was a full partner and that the violence, including the gun violence, was foreseeable and the sentence must reflect actual effect, even if Mr. Alexander did not directly inflict it. My view on this point is similar to the point immediately above. There is no evidence to support this proposed inference.
61Turning to the Defence, the submission was that Mr. Alexander’s degree of responsibility is limited to his actions of being one of the drivers.
62I disagree. Mr. Alexander pled to a charge of Robbery. Robbery by definition involves assaultive behaviour or a threat of assaultive behaviour. There is no suggestion that Mr. Alexander thought he was dropping off, and thereafter picking up, participants in a theft only. If that were the case, he would not have pled guilty to robbery.
63His degree of responsibility in this robbery offence includes being a party to the assaultive behaviour. This includes the items and injuries not placed in italics above. These things are very serious and significant, and include:
Mr. Elliot - left hand and his head were injured from multiple strikes from a bat and a wrench. Police observed mass hemorrhaging and pieces of his flesh and skull protruding from the back of his head.
Mr. Almond - head injury with a 4-5 inch laceration across his forehead which required several stitches to close. He had a large circular injury to the back of his forearm.
Mr. Zimmer - assaulted while the culprits were attempting to zip tie him.
64Mr. Alexander does not bear additional responsibility for being a person who inflicted these assaults and injuries. Further, as previously outlined he does not bear responsibility for use of a firearm and the associated injuries.
65Mr. Alexander bears full responsibility for the Fail to Stop offence.
Other Aggravating Factors
66The robbery took place at an independent commercial establishment during hours where it was open to the public, and the public was also nearby on the street.
67The offence caused multiple areas of financial loss to the shop owner.
68Regarding the flight from police, while it was not momentary and involved residential streets, it is noteworthy that it was also brief and covered a distance of approximately 1 km.
Mitigating Factors
Guilty Plea
69It is questionable whether one can characterize a plea that occurs approximately 1 year after the fact as an ‘early plea’, in the normal sense. It is, however, analogous in this case.
70It is not just a defendant who determines when a plea will occur. In many ways it is the Crown who ‘drives the bus’ in many respects, on this issue. In this case, the primary charge that Mr. Alexander pled to did not exist until the day he pled and it was only contemplated as a possibility approximately two months before that.
71In these circumstances, one could not expect a guilty plea to be any earlier.
Youthful First Time Offender
72There is no issue that Mr. Alexander is a youthful offender (20 years old at the time of the offence), with no Criminal Record, and with no previous contact with the court of any kind.
Support in the Community
73Mr. Alexander’s current community support is basically his mother. She wrote an email and a letter for the court supporting her son and she participated in the PSR.
74I view her as a strong support, who will provide a place for her son to live and who will offer support and guidance in his efforts to move forward with work and skills training, with the current plan being trying to enroll in training to become an elevator technician.
75From the PSR this appears to be a good two way relationship, which is encouraging. It appears that Mr. Alexander after having lost his way and having experienced the offence and the ensuing consequences will welcome his mother’s support as he endeavours to find a positive path forward.
Activities in Custody
76The PSR indicates that while in custody Mr. Alexander has engaged in the Changing Habits program. It also indicates that he is amenable to counselling and he hopes to attend college and, with the assistance of his mother, is making appropriate enquiries.
77Also, Defence counsel filed certificates to confirm Mr. Alexander’s participation with the School of Correspondence Bible Studies organized by Gospel Echoes Team Bible Studies.
Morris Factors
78Mr. Alexander identifies as Black. There was no Morris report or enhanced PSR in this case. I am familiar with the general type of information that these reports provide. Mr. Alexander falls within Morris considerations. I am somewhat short on details but what is available was covered in his background that was outlined above. This included being raised in neighbourhoods that were underprivileged and subject to criminality, including gun violence. He also experienced the loss of a friend due to the same.
Duncan/Marshall Reduction
79An overall summary of this mitigating factor is provided in R. v. Reid3
In its 2016 decision in R. v. Duncan, Court of Appeal for Ontario held that sentences could be reduced beyond the Summers credit to reflect particularly harsh conditions during an accused’s pre-sentencing custody. Thereafter, many sentencing judges made sentence reductions for what came to be known as the “Duncan credit”, typically as a multiplier based on the number of days of such harsh conditions. The Court of Appeal addressed the issue again in 2021 in R. v. Marshall, holding that the “Duncan credit” is more properly characterized as a mitigating factor in sentence, rather than a “credit” against what would otherwise be a fit sentence. Doherty J.A. held that it remains permissible for sentencing judges to calculate the reduction as a multiplier, or to quantify it in some way, although, it is also permissible to say that it was being considered as a mitigating factor without quantifying it as such. The important point from Marshall is that regardless of how the reduction for harsh pre-sentencing custody is calculated, the amount of the reduction cannot be permitted to result in a sentence that is unfit [footnotes omitted].
80As noted in the Introduction above, I provided R. v. Reid4 and R. v. Gorgievski5 to counsel during the sentencing hearing. This was to provide what I find are helpful examples of the history of this factor and the application of the Duncan/Marshall Reduction.
81I do not intend to review each of them, but rather I highlight the following. These cases:
are authored by experienced jurists in the Superior Court of Ontario that have grappled with the issue of pre-trial jail conditions over time and their judgments reflect the chronic nature of this issue.
treat the jail conditions during pre-trial custody as a mitigating factor, consistent with Marshall.
use a methodology of identifying the number of lock-down days and triple bunking days and then assigning a numerical number to the reduction judged to be appropriate as a mitigating factor. This means the reduction is specific and transparent.
when considering the evidence, no distinction is made between consideration of lock-down days and triple bunking days.
82Mr. Alexander’s entire pre-trial custody was spent at Maplehurst Correctional Complex. Before turning to the details I note the following about triple bunking and lock-downs at Maplehurst. I think that these details further support giving equal consideration to each day of ‘triple bunking’ and each day of ‘lock-down’.
83Triple bunking:
The term ‘triple bunking’ at Maplehurst is a misnomer. It actually involves 1 bunk bed (top and bottom) and a mattress on the floor.
The report from Maplehurst indicates that the cell dimensions in a regular unit are 15’ long and 7.5’ wide.
There is a toilet in each cell that I understand is in the interior of the cell facing toward the cell door, on the side opposite to the bunk bed.
This configuration means that the mattress on the floor is placed beside the bunk bed, in front of the toilet.
I do not know the dimensions of the bunk bed or the mattress but I think the following hypothetical is instructive:
o If one hypothetically shopped at IKEA and i) purchased the most basic child’s bunk bed which is 41” wide; ii) purchased an extra mattress for the bunk bed which is 38” wide; and iii) placed these items in a regular cell side by side, then the remaining floor space, as far as the width of the cell is concerned, is 11”.
o If in fact there is more than 11” left over, it would have to involve providing grown men with similar furnishings but that are smaller than children’s furniture.
84Lock-downs at Maplehurst:
The starting point is to understand how many hours prisoners are locked in their cells before on non-lock-down days.
Prisoners are locked in their cells at night from 20:00 - 08:00 hours (12 hours). This flows through directly into being locked in their cells for breakfast from 08:00 - 09:00 hours (1 hour). Then they are locked in their cells for lunch from 15:30 - 17:00 hours (1.5 hours) and supper 15:30 - 17:00 hours (1.5 hours). The total is 16 hours/day.
This also means that every day prisoners eat all of their meals, sitting on a bunk bed in close proximity to their toilet.
Unlike in the past, the report that Maplehurst provided does not give particulars about lock-downs. Based on past experience: I considered partial lockdowns to be the same as full lock-downs because they are often very close to the same thing; and I assumed that the primary reason for the lock-downs continues to be staff shortages and that these tend to cluster around desirable holidays and long weekends.
If, hypothetically, lock-downs were just a few random days I would not consider them at all because they can be a necessary part of operating security in a jail from time to time.
85In order to determine the Duncan/Marshall reduction I considered the following:
Total days in Custody - Jan 22/25 to Mar 16/26 = 419 days (13 months & 23 days/1.15 years)
Total days in Maplehurst report - Jan 23/25 to Jan 22/26 = 364 days
Days & percent in Lock-down - 126 days = 35%
Days & percent Triple bunked - 348 days = 96%
Remaining days - Jan 23/25 to Mar 15/25 = 51 days
Assumed Lock-down - 35% of 51 = 18 days
Assumed Triple bunked - 96% of 51 days = 49 days
Total Lock-down & Triple bunked - (126 + 18) + (348 + 49) = 541 days (1.48 years or 1.5 years)
86I settled on 1.5 years as the appropriate amount for the Duncan/Marshall reduction.
87I considered making the reduction higher to address the fact that when one looks at the numbers there has to be approximately 146 days (35% of 419) where Mr. Alexander must have experienced the combined effect of being locked down, while also being triple bunked.
88An example of this combined effect being considered in the Duncan/Marshall reduction is found in Reid6 where Justice Molloy essentially used a 1:1 ratio, as I have done, resulting in 1.12 years reduction and then she considered additional reduction for the combined effect days. She determined this by considering lock-down days of 203 over approximately 2 years equaling to 25% of the time and triple bunking days of 208 over approximately 2 years equaling to 25% of the time. After considering this additional aspect she granted a total reduction of 1.7 years.
89I did not give Mr. Alexander any additional reduction based on the combined effect of lock-down and triple bunking. I would have done so in other circumstances, but in this case to do so would in my view reduce the sentence too far and would not be in compliance with R. v. Marshall.
90I am keenly aware of the Crown’s opposition, in this case, to the Duncan/Marshall reduction broadly speaking and especially to any reduction that is higher than 419 days. This aligns with the Crown’s overall position that given the level of violence in this case. all of the mitigating factors combined should only result in a modest reduction in the sentence.
91My position is that Mr. Alexander, and others like him, are in pre-trial custody courtesy of a court order and the court cannot ignore how these orders are administered by the Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services. There is nothing here that disentitles Mr. Alexander from being given this consideration. In fact it is the opposite, given: he is a youthful first time offender; he has never experienced custody in the past; and he is actually being given proportionally less consideration than some other defendants given the inherent ceiling in Marshall.
92This whole problem is becoming even more worrisome than in the past. As the jail conditions continue to worsen, and given the inherent ceiling in Marshall limiting the reduction, it may become necessary to entertain Charter Applications on this issue at sentencing hearings.
Appropriate Sentence
93Putting the Duncan/Marshall reduction to the side for the moment, I considered everything included in the reasons above in the context of s. 718 and s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.
94Mr. Alexander’s degree of responsibility (as detailed in paragraphs 59 to 64) in this very violent offence causes denunciation of the conduct and the deterrence of others to be given significant weight and justifies a significant custodial sentence.
95Sentencing under sections s. 718 and s. 718.1 is an individualized exercise and it cannot be forgotten that he pled guilty and that he is a youthful first time offender. Further, there a number of other mitigating factors and all indications are that he has a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation.
96In my view, before any Duncan/Marshall reduction, a fit sentence in the circumstances is 4 years custody. This is a significant period of custody especially in light of this being a guilty plea and Mr. Alexander being a youthful, first time offender.
97When the Duncan/Marshall reduction is taken into consideration the actual custodial part of the sentence on the Robbery is 2.5 years (i.e. 4 years - 1.5 years).
98Given the time Mr. Alexander has served on this sentence there is a Summers credit of 1.7 years (i.e. 419 days/1.12 years x 1.5) which leaves .8 years left to serve, which amounts to 9.6 months, which equals 9 months and 18 days.
99In addition to the jail sentence, there is a probation order for 18 months. In addition to the statutory terms the terms are:
Report upon release and thereafter as required
Have no contact with certain named individuals
Make efforts to seek and maintain employment and/or attend an education or training program.
100There were also ancillary orders as outlined in paragraph 13 above.
101With the Fail to Stop charge, the Crown urged the court to give a consecutive sentence. I accept that the charge involved additional elements, but there is also a complete overlap with the circumstances of the robbery.
102I find that 3 months custody, concurrent, is appropriate.
103In light of Mr. Alexander’s financial circumstances the Victim Fine Surcharges were waived.
Released: May 8, 2026
Signed: Justice K. L. Hawke
Footnotes
- R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136
- R. v. Gorgievski, 2024 ONSC 5899
- R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136, paragraph 32
- R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136
- R. v. Gorgievski, 2024 ONSC 5899
- R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 136