ONTARIO YOUTH COURT OF JUSTICE
WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is subject to subsections 110(1) and 111(1) and section 129 of the Act. These provisions read as follows:
IDENTITY OF YOUNG PERSON NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
IDENTITY OF VICTIM OR WITNESS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.
NO SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE — No person who is given access to a record or to whom information is disclosed under this Act shall disclose that information to any person unless the disclosure is authorized under this Act.
Subsection 138(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with these provisions, states as follows:
- OFFENCES — Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published) . . . or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Y.B. (A Young Person)
Sentencing Judgment
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on March 26 and June 2, 2026
Written Reasons released on June 8, 2026
A. Cox counsel for the Crown
I. Brownlee counsel for Y.B.
I. Introduction
1Y.B., a young person as defined by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”), pleaded guilty on March 26, 2026, to two counts of robbery. Y.B. participated in two extremely serious crimes: a violent carjacking with a firearm and a brazen robbery of a jewelry store.
2After hearing from the parties on June 2, 2026, I provided a brief oral judgment and indicated that I would provide written reasons in the near future. These are my reasons.
II. Facts In Support of the Guilty Pleas and Other Information
(i) Toronto Carjacking – January 26, 2025
3On Sunday, January 26, 2025, Steven Maxwell attended The Keg restaurant at 60 Estate Drive, Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario. After dining, he returned to his 2022 Lamborghini Urus SUV. As he got in, he observed a dark blue Honda Civic perform a three-point turn and blocked his vehicle.
4Three masked suspects, including Y.B. (then 16 years of age), exited the Honda Civic. They were dressed in dark clothing. At least one was armed with a loaded prohibited firearm.
5The suspects surrounded Mr. Maxwell’s vehicle, and one pointed a firearm at him. That suspect threatened, “Get the fuck out of the car, don't be stupid, we're gonna fucking shoot you." Fearing for his safety, Mr. Maxwell exited the vehicle.
6The suspects entered the Lamborghini Urus and fled the scene, with the Honda Civic following in tandem.
7Toronto Police were contacted, and Mr. Maxwell provided access to the vehicle’s GPS tracking system. Police officers were able to track the Lamborghini to Engel Court in Pickering, Ontario.
8Officers observed the vehicle parked in a residential neighbourhood with one suspect outside attempting to remove the licence plate. The vehicle then began moving again. When the vehicle turned onto Atwood Crescent, police executed a box-in, a tactical police technique to prevent the vehicle from driving away.
9As this occurred, the Lamborghini driver attempted to flee. The stolen vehicle collided with police vehicles and a parked civilian vehicle, causing extensive damage. It eventually struck a tree and came to rest near 683 Atwood Crescent. It was inoperable, having sustained heavy damage. The Lamborghini Urus was valued at approximately $320,000.
10Police officers arrested three individuals who had been inside the Lamborghini, including Y.B., who was seated in the rear driver's side seat.
11The officers later located the stolen Honda Civic a short distance away. A loaded Glock handgun was found on the front passenger seat of the Honda Civic. The firearm contained 10 rounds of 10mm ammunition, had a round in the chamber and the magazine had a capacity exceeding 10 rounds. The property that Mr. Maxwell left in the Lamborghini was also located.
12For the purposes of the guilty plea, Y.B. acknowledged that he knew a loaded prohibited firearm was used during the robbery, but does not admit to holding or pointing a firearm during the robbery.
(ii) Durham Jewelry Store Robbery – October 8, 2025
13On Wednesday, October 8, 2025, Y.B. (now 17) attended Paris Jewelers, located at 419 King Street West, Oshawa, Ontario, accompanied by his three accomplices. They all wore face coverings to conceal their identities.
14Two of the suspects smashed display cases with a hammer and a pickaxe, while Y.B. and another suspect removed jewelry from the cases. The employees left the store, fearing for their safety.
15The suspects filled their backpacks with jewelry and fled. The group escaped in a red Honda CR-V, which was later determined to have been stolen. The vehicle collided with a police car operated by Constable Haigh as it was exiting Highway 401. It then struck a Region of Durham Works truck, rendering the vehicle inoperable. Y.B. and the other suspects attempted to escape the scene on foot.
16Y.B. was arrested shortly thereafter. At the time of his arrest, he was wearing the same clothing as shown in the surveillance footage and was in possession of jewelry from the store.
17The total value of the jewelry stolen from Paris Jewelers exceeded $50,000.
(iii) Fail To Comply With A Release Order
18Following his arrest, Y.B. was placed on a release order by a Justice of the Peace. The order required him to remain at his residence at all times, but for limited exceptions.
19On January 7, 2026, Y.B. was at his residence with his parents, who were acting as his sureties. They contacted 911 to request termination of his release order because he was not complying with the house rules and was skipping school. Y.B. left his residence. However, he was located a short distance away and arrested by a police officer.
III. Background of Y.B.
20Y.B.’s parents immigrated to Canada in 2006. They were born in Afghanistan. Y.B. was born in Toronto. He has three siblings, aged 20, 18 and 13.
21A section 34 assessment was filed as an exhibit at the sentencing hearing. In the report, Y.B. described being physically abused by his father as a child. He was sometimes struck with a belt, a shoe, or a coat hanger. His father also kicked him out of the house several times after he turned 16. Eventually, he ran away from home for two days. When he returned, his father stopped physically abusing him. By contrast, he described a particularly close and healthy relationship with his mother.
22His parents impose strict rules at home. He is expected to complete his schoolwork and typically does not leave his home without permission. At age 15, however, he did not always tell his parents where he was going. He began returning home late in the evening, past his 8 pm curfew.
23Y.B. has many peers whom he admits are engaged in illegal activities. He chose to associate with this negative peer group. Indeed, he stated that he did not want to be associated with “losers,” who, in his view, are other teenagers who are not dressed well and talk about homework. His mother expressed concern about potential gang involvement for her son, based on statements he made to her about where he could travel safely within the city.
24He is currently enrolled as a Grade 12 student. His academic performance began to deteriorate after Grade 9, when his work habits declined significantly. He refused to complete his assigned homework. Prior to that, his grades were quite high. In the years that followed, they dropped noticeably. His attendance also worsened. In Grade 11, he failed most of his courses. Similarly, a representative of Pathways to Education informed the report's authors that Y.B. has been working with him since Y.B. began Grade 9. Unfortunately, Y.B. began to disengage after Grade 10. His attendance dropped, and he did not attend tutoring sessions consistently.
25Y.B. told the author of the section 34 assessment that he finds school “too hard” and that “school is not for me.” At the time the report was authored, he had 14 of the 30 credits required to graduate. He expressed interest in a co-op placement, however. He is interested in a career in music or, alternatively, in construction work.
26Y.B. was not diagnosed with any observable signs of severe mental illness or trauma-related symptoms. However, he has struggled with clinical depression and was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder.
27Some aspects of the section 34 assessment are very troubling. When asked about the use of weapons for illegal activities, Y.B. stated that he “does not care if someone has a weapon and that it is not a “big deal.” He believes it is “ok” to carry a BB gun, but not a real gun. He admitted to previously possessing brass knuckles and spoke of wanting to obtain a taser so that he would see a person who angered him “instantly fall without getting a murder charge.”
28Y.B. admitted to the report’s authors that he participated in other organized criminal activities, beyond the robberies for which he pleaded guilty. He was heavily influenced by his poor choice of friends, and desired their approval more than anything else. This played a considerable role in his decision to commit all these offences. As a result, he was further diagnosed with conduct disorder. The authors concluded that he “likely… absorbed antisocial and pro-criminal values” from this peer group, “where such values and behaviours” had been “normalized.”
29Regarding future treatment, Y.B. expressed mixed sentiments. To the authors of the section 34 assessment, he described an openness to engaging with services and supports, but stated he would attend only individual (not group) sessions. However, the author of the pre-sentence report (“PSR”), which was completed some months later, stated that he does not believe he needs program support.
30On the day of the sentencing hearing, I learned from Mr. Brownlee that his client has been doing much better since he pleaded guilty to these offences. He is now re-enrolled in school and has been attending the Alternative Scarborough Education program. He has 23 credits. He is described in various letters provided by school officials to the court as a respectful student, who has made positive changes in his life, and demonstrated a measurable commitment to his academic performance. He has set realistic goals for himself in the future. He has also reconnected wit Pathways to Education.
IV. Allocution
31Y.B. spoke to me in court on June 2, 2026. He apologized to the victims, the court, and his parents. He admitted he made bad decisions and thought the lifestyle he was leading previously was “cool.” He knows that was wrong.
V. Statements from Y.B.’s Parents
32Both his father and mother addressed me. They have noticed their son has changed, for the better, since his last arrest. He is respectful and courteous. He attends school. He helps out around the house. He wants to become a better person. They love their son, and will continue to be there for him, whatever sentence I choose to impose.
VI. Positions of the Parties
33On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Cox submits that a two-year secure custody and supervision order, followed by a year of probation, is the appropriate disposition. No sanction other than custody can adequately reflect the sentencing principles of the YCJA. Mr. Cox pointed me to various aggravating factors in both robberies, including the large-scale losses suffered by the victims, the use of weapons, and the degree of planning involved. Carjackings and jewellery store robberies are matters of great public concern.
34Mr. Cox relied on R. v. H.S., 2014 ONCA 742, a Court of Appeal decision that upheld a sentence of nine months of secure custody and supervision, together with a year of probation, for a young person who drove the getaway vehicle in an armed robbery. For Y.B., Mr. Cox submits that secure custody is also necessary given the seriousness of the robberies and the broader public interest.
35Mr. Brownlee submits an 18-month open custody and supervision order is the appropriate sentence. While these were very serious robberies, his client pleaded guilty, and was a follower, not a leader, in each of them. That does not excuse his conduct, but it does somewhat lessen his moral culpability.
36Y.B. has demonstrated his commitment to his rehabilitation and has not re-offended or violated the terms of his bail order, which was quite restrictive, since he entered his guilty pleas. He should be credited for the 44 days of pre-sentence custody he experienced, as well as for the time he has spent on house arrest. Mr. Brownlee requested an overall credit of 120 days (or four months).
37Mr. Brownlee submits that open custody is a better choice for his client than secure custody.
VII. Youth Sentencing Principles
38The sentencing principles of the YCJA are fundamentally different from those found in the Criminal Code. As a starting point, young persons are entitled to a presumption of diminished moral culpability for their crimes as a principle of fundamental justice: see R. v. D.B., 2008 SCC 25. The purpose of sentencing 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… rehabilitation and reintegration into society”: see YCJA section 38.
39When arriving at an appropriate sentence, a youth justice court shall take into account the following factors pursuant to YCJA s. 38(3):
(a) The degree of participation of 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 [section 38].
40In R. v. T.M., 2025 ONCA 862, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that “accountability” for young persons has three essential components: (1) the imposition of “just sanctions”; (2) that have “meaningful consequences for the young person” and (3) that promote… rehabilitation and reintegration into society”: see para. 40. In R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “the accountability inquiry” is not solely offender-focused, but “permits the integration of a broader array of factors, including the normative consequences of the offence, the impact on victims and the community, as well as the availability (or lack thereof) of rehabilitative and reintegrative supports within the youth system”: see para. 173. YCJA section 3(1)(c) requires sentencing judges to weigh the harm caused to victims in the sentencing process as well.
41Importantly, while the concept of accountability in the YCJA requires consideration of the gravity of the offences before the court, that factor is not determinative. A youth sentence must be “proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence”: section 38(2)(c). Assessing a young person’s level of moral culpability for their involvement in a crime is often a complex, fact-specific endeavour. Young persons may commit offences for various reasons, some of which do not necessarily indicate heightened culpability: see I.M. at para. 146. In I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada held that judges must assess, as best they can, the young person’s developmental age (which may or may not align with the young person’s chronological age) at the time of the offence as part of this process: I.M. at paras. 104-5; T.M. at para. 75. By incorporating all of these considerations into their decisions, youth justice courts ensure that the youth justice system “maintains public confidence and responds appropriately to more serious, harmful or blameworthy behaviour”: see T.M. at para. 42.
42In some cases, a youth justice court may apply the sentencing principles of individual deterrence and denunciation under YCJA section 38(2)(f). As I understand the Crown’s position, I agree that Y.B.’s repeated offending and involvement in a violent crime require that I place some weight on those principles today, although they must be subordinated to rehabilitation: see T.M. at para. 100. However, I remind myself that certain adult sentencing principles, such as general deterrence, never apply to youth sentencing decisions: R. v. B.W.P.; R. v. B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27.
VIII. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
43With that background in place, I observe that several highly serious aggravating factors are evident in this case. Some relate to the objective severity of the offences and to the clear risk to public safety posed by Y.B.’s actions. Others demonstrate his disregard for court orders and his tendency to re-offend.
44Y.B. was involved in the theft or possession of at least three motor vehicles. First, the Honda Civic used to transport him and his associates to the carjacking scene. Second, the Lamborghini that was taken at gunpoint. Third, the Honda CRA that was used in the jewelry store robbery.
45Weapons were used in both robberies. In the first robbery, a loaded handgun was pointed directly at the victim. Handguns are instruments of death. The fear this act instilled in Mr. Maxwell was intentional. In the second robbery, a hammer and a pickaxe were used to cause destruction to the owners’ store. Indeed, at the time of the second robbery, Y.B. was subject to a release order dated February 21, 2025, imposed on him for the first robbery. That release order included a term that prohibited him from possessing any weapons. Y.B. chose to reoffend and committed yet another violent robbery with the use of weapons. Being at large on a release order when committing a new, similar offence is an aggravating factor: see R. v. Kerr, 2024 ONSC 1514, at para. 55; R. v. Blake, 2016 ONCA 508, at para. 7.
46The first robbery of the Lamborghini demonstrated planning and deliberation. The suspects approached the vehicle and pulled in behind it. They approached the driver when he was outnumbered and threatened him with violence while one of them was armed with a weapon. While Y.B.’s specific role in the robbery was not made entirely clear to me, and I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person wielding the weapon, he was an active participant regardless. There was also advanced planning regarding the jewelry store robbery. The suspects entered the store with their faces masked and were ready to obtain what they desired using force and weaponry.
47After both robberies, the suspects caused damage to vehicles while trying to avoid being arrested. Of great concern, in each case, the suspects’ vehicle struck a police car operated by an on-duty officer. While no one was hurt, someone easily could have been. The potential harm from these actions was entirely reasonably foreseeable, even to teenagers: YCJA section 38(3)(b). While Y.B. was not proven to be the driver in either case, he and his associates were attempting to escape capture, and he bears some responsibility for what occurred as a party to this aspect of the crimes.
48The value of the stolen car and the jewelry was significant. In particular, the Lamborghini was valued at around $320,000. It is a renowned luxury vehicle. It was rendered inoperable. $50,000 of jewelry was stolen in the second robbery. Other vehicles, including police vehicles, were damaged and would have required repairs.
49There are several important mitigating factors. Y.B. pleaded guilty, which spared the victims from testifying and the youth justice court from allocating the resources needed for multiple trials. I was informed there were significant triable issues. Y.B. has expressed remorse for his conduct as well.
50Y.B. has been subject to a revised “house arrest” bail since his release from custody on January 13, 2026. While the bail order permitted him to be outside his place of residence to attend school or while in the company of a surety, it was otherwise very restrictive. In particular, he has had little, if any, of the social interaction typical of teenagers and has only been allowed out of his house for school and to attend the mosque.
51His family provides strong support and will continue to supervise him in the community. There are many excellent recommendations for appropriate service program providers contained within the section 34 report, which Y.B. should be able to participate in. Much of that will turn on Y.B.’s attitude towards his own rehabilitation, which, unfortunately, I find is improving, yet unsatisfactory at this time. He needs to understand that he is on a dangerous path towards future criminality and that he must become motivated to improve himself.
IX. Sentencing For Armed Robberies
52In R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, the Supreme Court of Canada made the following observations about armed robberies at paras. 53-54:
…To start, even when committed without a firearm, robbery is a serious offence based on the requisite actus reus of the use or threat of violence or force in stealing or attempting to steal property. Adding a firearm to the equation simply increases the gravity of the offence. … As this Court wrote in R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199, when a firearm is used to threaten or intimidate, it “presents the ultimate threat of death to those in its presence” (p. 211). Prohibited firearms are among the most potent tools in the commission of crime. …
The harmful consequences of using a restricted or prohibited firearm in a robbery are readily identified. There is the risk of death or life-altering physical injury for victims and bystanders if the weapon is discharged. Even if the weapon is not fired, exposure to this threat carries the risk of profound psychological harm. … Beyond the immediate threats to victims, there are wider risks to the community. Wielding a firearm in a store can reasonably provoke force in response, either by police responding to the robbery in progress or bystanders who attempt to intervene. The risk of escalating violence is, as a result, acute.
53In R. v. Noor, Justice Clarke commented on the severity of carjacking. His Honour wrote the following at para. 22 of his decision:
At the risk of stating the obvious, robbery is a very serious offence, as demonstrated by the fact that it is punishable by life imprisonment. Carjacking is a serious type of robbery. The average person enjoys a degree of privacy and, more importantly, feels a sense of security while travelling in his or her motor car, as opposed to walking or using public transport. Although not so sacrosanct as the expectation to be secure in one’s own home, as the excerpts from the cases that follow make plain, the expectation to be able to travel about the community in safety in one’s own vehicle is recognized as a fundamental value of Canadian society. This value is something to be assiduously fostered and protected.
54Carjacking at gunpoint can only be described as a terrifying experience for victims: see R. v. Jacque-Frame, 2025 ONCJ 572, at paras. 54-65. The psychological damage may last forever. Many victims wonder if they will ever feel safe in their car again. Victims may also depend on their vehicle to get to and from work, take their children to school, or carry out their daily activities. The crime inevitably has a serious impact on them.
55As a young person, Y.B.’s moral culpability for this offence is presumed to be reduced compared to that of an adult offender. However, it remains considerable. He is an intelligent teenager. He knew what he was doing. Robbing someone with a firearm is fraught with peril. There is always a great risk that the firearm could be discharged, even inadvertently, potentially resulting in serious injury or even death. Adults can expect to face minimum sentences of at least five years in prison for committing such offences: see Criminal Code section 344(1)(a).
56Jewelry store robberies have become frighteningly common in the GTA. The owners of these businesses are often preyed upon by groups of young men who believe they can quickly make off with valuables. When the assailants enter with weapons and damage the display cases, they have destroyed the business's property, causing significant financial loss. This is exactly what Y.B. did, and he and his accomplices caused serious harm to the hardworking owners of Paris Jewelers who were trying to support themselves. They, and their employees, may also never feel safe again in their store. All of this was done for pure greed.
57The parties agree that these robberies constitute “violent offences” as defined by section 39(1)(a) of the YCJA and that a custodial sentence for them is therefore lawfully available.
X. Conclusion
58The imposition of a custodial sentence by a youth justice court must be approached with great caution. Several provisions of the YCJA were intended to prioritize the principle of restraint when sentencing young persons. In particular, section 39(2)(d) demands that a youth justice court consider all alternatives to custody that are reasonable in the circumstances. Section 39(2)(e) requires that any sentence imposed 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.
59Nevertheless, with these principles in mind, young persons must still be held accountable for their crimes. In I.M., the Supreme Court held that a youth sentence must address “the gravity of [a young person’s] actions”: see para. 170. In T.M., the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that custody “may be necessary in some cases involving violent, serious or repeat offending”, although it should be avoided for first offences whenever possible: see paras. 57 and 98.
60When a young person commits multiple serious offences involving violence and weapons that demonstrably endangered public safety, crafting an appropriate sentence can be a difficult balancing act. In this case, the parties have agreed that a custody and supervision order is required. I agree. Even for a first-time offender, Y.B.’s crimes were incredibly serious, and his degree of moral culpability is very high. Anything short of a custodial disposition would fail to hold him meaningfully accountable for his actions. While he has some insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, he appears to have romanticized the use of weapons and associated with a very negative peer group. The progress he has made over the last few months is encouraging, but only a start. He requires strict supervision and structure, and the gravity of his wrongdoing must be brought home to him.
61Y.B. is of average intellectual functioning for his age. The authors of the section 34 report noted no evidence of intellectual delay, and his academic skills were generally age-appropriate. I find that his developmental age tracks his chronological age. Although he has experienced depression in the past, the authors’ assessment was that he was no longer reporting symptoms, and there was no evidence of a generalized anxiety disorder.
62There is no reasonable alternative to a custody and supervision order that would meet the sentencing principles of the YCJA applicable in this case.
63When imposing a custody and supervision order, a youth justice court must select between open and secure custody. The presumption, in law, is for an open custody placement, and the Crown bears the burden of satisfying the court that secure custody is necessary: see R. v. L.B., 2008 ONCA 333, at paras. 3-4; section 24.1(2) of the Young Offenders Act, which is made applicable by Order-in-Council 1067/2021, in accordance with s. 88 of the YCJA.
64In R. v. T.P., 2025 ONCJ 701, at paras. 57-8, I reviewed the differences between secure and open custody and offered some observations on when open custody is generally preferable for a young person. Y.B. committed two very serious crimes of violence, which weigh in favour of secure custody. However, he has remained largely compliant with his bail order for several months and has not substantively re-offended since October 8, 2025. If permitted to serve his sentence in an open custody facility, he will ultimately be placed in a smaller facility closer to where his family resides, which will benefit his rehabilitation by making it easier for him to maintain contact with them. A placement in a secure custody facility would inevitably run a greater risk of exposing him to the very negative elements he needs to avoid.
65The authors of the section 34 assessment noted that Y.B. had been in open custody temporarily, without incident, before his release on bail. This evidence indicates that he can comply with the rules and regulations of such an environment. I find that, with the right safeguards in place, he is at a low to moderate risk of re-offending. Importantly, the author of the PSR wrote that Y.B. believed he would be able to maintain contact with his parents more easily in an open custody placement, thereby promoting his healthy reintegration into society.
66Considering all of these factors, the presumption of an open custody placement has not been rebutted by the Crown. Furthermore, I find that an open-custody facility will promote Y.B.’s long-term rehabilitation. It will provide him with the structure and supervision he needs to commit to his education and remove him from the previous anti-social associations that had been negatively influencing him. Those associations likely played a role in his committing these offences due to his social anxiety. In time, he will hopefully recognize that he should value his friends’ character and lifestyle choices over more superficial considerations.
67Between his pre-sentence custody and time on a house arrest bail, I grant Y.B. four months credit. I impose a 14-month open custody and supervision order commencing today. That will be followed by a 12-month probation order with appropriate terms and conditions. I will release the YCJA section 34 report to the Provincial Director and the administrators of any open custody facility where Y.B. is placed, so they can incorporate its recommendations into his rehabilitative programming. At the request of Mr. Brownlee, I will also release the report to the Toronto District School Board to assist with Y.B.’s ongoing educational needs.
68Robbery is a primary designated offence and DNA orders shall be issued accordingly.
69A section 51(1) weapons prohibition order is imposed for 10 years on each count.
Released: June 8, 2026
Signed: Justice Brock Jones