ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4810-998-20-75005516 4810-998-25-48109213
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
LILY AYELAZUNO
Before Justice Hafeez S. Amarshi
Ruling on Breach of Conditional Sentence and Disposition
S. Duffy counsel for the Crown
T. Kent counsel for Lily Ayelazuno
Reasons for Decision
A. Introduction
On May 8, 2025, I sentenced Lily Ayelazuno to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 12 months of probation. A conditional sentence is a sentence of incarceration that is permitted to be served in the community under what are usually strict conditions.
Ms. Ayelazuno had earlier pled guilty and accepted that she had defrauded Ovarian Cancer Canada of a sum of just over $60,000. Briefly, she was hired by the non-profit in March 2019 as an administrator and executive assistant.
On December 9, 2020, Ovarian Cancer Canada contacted police to report that the offender had made unauthorized purchases using company credit cards. According to the non-profit, she made a number of unauthorized charges over a nine-month period between March 2020 and December 2020. Ms. Ayelazuno tried to conceal her fraud by altering bank statements.
At the time of sentencing, Ms. Ayelazuno provided partial restitution. It was a mitigating factor in sentence.
B. The Conditional Sentence Order
As noted, Ms. Ayelazuno was sentenced to a conditional sentence for fraud over $5,000. The conditional sentence order includes the following conditions, among others: condition 1 - keep the peace and be of good behaviour; condition 5 - notify the court or supervisor of changes in employment; and condition 8 - home confinement for the first 12 months, requiring her to remain in her residence at all times except to go directly to and from, or to be at, a verified place of employment, with schedules provided in advance to the supervisor. This is in addition to other exceptions for medical emergencies and to obtain the necessities of life.
Of significance is condition 12, under which the offender was subject to GPS monitoring for the first 12 months of the order.
Following that period of home confinement, she was subject to a curfew for the remainder of the order.
Ms. Ayelazuno reviewed the terms of the sentence and agreed to abide by the conditions.
C. The Allegations and the Statutory Framework
The allegation that comprises this conditional sentence breach hearing is that Ms. Ayelazuno breached her conditional sentence order by misleading her conditional sentence supervisor regarding her employment - specifically, by tendering forged University Health Network (“UHN”) employment agreements and paystubs, and by providing false information that she was employed at JOEY Restaurants and DGS Event Staffing - in order to gain exceptions to her house arrest condition.
Section 742.6 of the Criminal Code governs breach proceedings. Admissibility is supported by the written report of the supervisor and signed witness statements, and the offender may seek leave to cross-examine the supervisor or any witness whose signed statement is included. In this case, the defence sought and was granted leave to cross-examine Andrew Jebaili, a manager at JOEY Restaurants.
The Crown must prove the sentence breach on a balance of probabilities. If a breach is established, the burden shifts to the offender to establish a reasonable excuse. Upon being satisfied that an offender has, without reasonable excuse, breached a condition of a conditional sentence order (“CSO”), the court may take no action, change the optional conditions, suspend the order and direct that a portion be served in custody, or terminate the order and commit the offender to custody until the expiration of the sentence pursuant to s. 742.6(9).
D. Relevant Evidence
The Supervisor’s Report
The Supervisor’s Report of Anosha Malek, dated July 23, 2025, together with the attached signed statements and the will-say statement of Detective Constable Elliott Lee, were admitted under ss. 742.6(4) and (5). Ms. Ayelazuno was given reasonable notice and a copy.
On May 16, 2025, Ms. Ayelazuno reported to her conditional sentence supervisor at the Scarborough Probation and Parole Office. At that meeting, the conditions of the conditional sentence order were reviewed. Ms. Malek also discussed the variation process and the role of the conditional sentence supervisor. Ms. Ayelazuno verbally confirmed that she understood. The offender told Ms. Malek that she was employed: (a) as an education specialist with Salesforce; (b) as a bartender at JOEY, a restaurant chain; and (c) as a research assistant at the University Health Network.
The conditional sentence supervisor instructed the offender to provide supporting documents to confirm her employment.
On May 20, 2025, as outlined in the supervisor’s report, Ms. Ayelazuno faxed Ms. Malek a UHN paystub dated December 8, 2024, and a UHN Services Agreement dated March 27, 2025, bearing an effective employment date of May 16, 2025. On July 2, 2025, she sent Ms. Malek a second “Services Agreement,” dated May 22, 2025. There are, accordingly, two employment contracts.
Ms. Ayelazuno also provided paystubs for Salesforce, dated May 11, 2025, and JOEY Restaurant Group, dated May 16, 2025, for a pay period of April 26 to May 11, 2025.
On June 23, 2025, Ms. Ayelazuno filed an application to vary her conditional sentence order. In that application, she stated that she had to take a temporary leave from a part-time job as a bartender because “the uniform does not adequately cover the monitoring device”. She is referring to her purported employment at JOEY Restaurants.
As part of that application, she includes email correspondence between Andrew Jebaili, the general manager at the Markville location of JOEY Restaurants, and Ms. Ayelazuno, said to have occurred between May 11 and 15, 2025. The offender writes to Mr. Jebaili seeking a short-term leave and detailing another staff member who would cover her shifts. Mr. Jebaili responds by agreeing to the request. It later became clear that this email correspondence never occurred.
The Veracity of the Documents Provided to the Conditional Sentence Supervisor
Soon after Ms. Ayelazuno filed her application to vary her conditional sentence order with this court, a concern arose over the veracity of the documents that had been submitted to her conditional sentence supervisor. Detective Constable Elliott Lee, a fraud investigator with the Toronto Police Service, commenced an investigation. Detective Lee provided a will-say statement and testified at the conditional sentence breach hearing. Detective Lee came across as a fair and competent investigator.
The detective focused on the two UHN employment contracts provided to Ms. Malek. The agreements were provided to the supervisor to support subsequent requests for exceptions to her house arrest. Both agreements were signed by Bradley G. Wouters, identified in the agreements as the Executive Vice President of Science and Research at UHN.
To verify the authenticity of the contracts, Detective Lee first contacted Maggie Mercer, the Director of People and Culture at UHN. Ms. Mercer reviewed the services agreements and advised the officer by email on July 22, 2025, that the employment contract documents were not legitimate. She confirmed that UHN’s own records show that Ms. Ayelazuno’s employment was terminated for cause in July 2024 - a year earlier - and that her last payment was issued on July 18, 2024.
She further advised that the signature block on the services agreement shows anomalies. In her email, she states her belief that the signature block, bearing Dr. Wouters’ signature, had been cut and pasted.
Detective Lee also sent a paystub to Ms. Mercer for her review. It is the paystub that Ms. Ayelazuno sent to her conditional sentence supervisor to confirm her ongoing UHN employment. The paystub is entitled “record of earnings and deductions,” is dated December 8, 2024, and is in the name of Lily Ayelazuno. Ms. Mercer responded: “We write to confirm that the attached paystub is fraudulent.” Ms. Mercer outlined what she described as multiple red flags in the pay invoice that undermine its legitimacy, including the fact that Ms. Ayelazuno was paid $32 an hour, yet the year-to-date figure exceeds $52,000 for a period of only five months of work. Ms. Mercer concluded that the offender had taken the previous paystub issued to her on July 18, 2024, and manipulated that document.
Detective Lee then followed up with an in-person, video-recorded interview of Dr. Wouters on August 5, 2025. He was cautioned about providing a false statement. Dr. Wouters explained that he had two roles at UHN: (1) he oversees research network-wide; and (2) he manages his own research lab.
He stated that he was involved in hiring, but only for senior research staff and scientists - not for someone at Ms. Ayelazuno’s more modest level. The research department at UHN is large, employing 6,000 people.
At the interview, Detective Lee presented Dr. Wouters with a UHN paystub and agreement for his review. He stated that he had no recollection of signing the March 27, 2025 “Services Agreement” or ever seeing it, although he agreed that the electronic signature was his.
Dr. Wouters stated that he keeps copies of everything he signs, and that he reviewed his emails for the relevant period and could not find any agreement.
He further stated that there would be occasions where he would sign a services agreement, but only over a certain value - specifically, over $500,000 or over $1,000,000. The agreement provided by Ms. Ayelazuno has a value of $10,000 and, therefore, would not come to him for review and signature.
Based on Dr. Wouters’ video-recorded statement and Ms. Mercer’s correspondence with Detective Constable Lee, I readily concluded that the UHN contracts and UHN paystubs provided by Ms. Ayelazuno were not authentic, and that the offender was not employed by UHN in July 2025. Of note, the offender told Ms. Malek that she would be working at a UHN lab on July 23 and July 28 to support her request for an exception to the house arrest condition of her conditional sentence. This was clearly untrue.
In fairness, Ms. Kent conceded the Crown had established the breach of the conditional sentence order based on the evidence contained in the Conditional Sentence Supervisor’s Report and Dr. Wouters’ video-recorded statement.
JOEY Restaurants
Detective Lee then contacted Andrew Jebaili. He confirmed by email that the paystub for the period of April 26 to May 11, 2025, proffered by Ms. Ayelazuno to support her claim of ongoing employment, was not issued by JOEY Restaurants.
As noted, Mr. Jebaili testified at the hearing. He has been the General Manager at the Markville location for the last three years. Before that, he managed the Eaton Centre location. He first met Ms. Ayelazuno while working at the Sherway Mall location between 2019 and 2020, when the offender was a server. He testified that he did not work with her at any location at any time after 2020. The last time he had seen her was over five years ago.
Mr. Jebaili testified that he was contacted by Ms. Ayelazuno by email in May 2025, asking to join the Markville team. The manager asked for her availability; when she said weekends, he replied that he required greater availability. The offender followed up in an email offering more days, but he did not respond further. That email correspondence was forwarded to Detective Lee by Mr. Jebaili and is authentic. It does not include an offer of employment.
When the Crown showed him a separate email exchange between the two that purported to show Ms. Ayelazuno requesting “short-term leave” on May 11, 2025, and his reply on May 15, Mr. Jebaili denied ever receiving or sending those messages. He further stated that no one named “Maggie” worked at JOEY Markville. For clarification, “Maggie” refers to the server Ms. Ayelazuno identifies in the email as being able to pick up her shifts while she is on leave. I suppose the inclusion of a named co-worker in the email was meant to make the correspondence more credible, but the contents of that email were wholly fabricated.
Mr. Jebaili testified that Detective Constable Lee sent him a JOEY Restaurant Group paystub for the two-week period between April 26 and May 11, 2025, with a cheque date of May 16, 2025, payable to Ayelazuno, Lily, showing a net value of $256.17. He forwarded that paystub to JOEY payroll for verification. Payroll advised that the paystub was not issued by JOEY on the dates reflected. In cross-examination, the witness maintained that Ms. Ayelazuno did not work at his JOEY location in 2025, including the orientation shifts on April 17 or April 18, 2025, asserted by the offender.
DGS Event Staffing
- Detective Lee further contacted Nathan McNeil, a Senior Account Manager at DGS Event Staffing. He confirmed that Ms. Ayelazuno’s Independent Contractor Agreement with DGS was legitimate. He stated, however, that there were no events scheduled which corresponded with the dates and times the offender requested as exceptions to her house arrest for employment purposes.
E. The Defence Evidence
Ms. Ayelazuno testified at the breach hearing. I do not propose to outline all of her evidence. In general terms, she testified about ongoing health concerns. She detailed difficulties she was experiencing living at home with her parents -specifically, her father and his reaction to the GPS monitoring device - and that she has sought new housing and signed a new lease. She detailed new employment that she obtained with Colliers as a project manager and on the marketing team of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Those jobs are largely remote.
Further, she enrolled in a Project Management program through the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Education. That course is online.
This evidence was not contentious, and I accept that she is making efforts to find employment, seek compatible housing, continue her education and address her health concerns.
F. Analysis and Findings on the Alleged Breaches
DGS Event Staffing and Faur
Turning to the substantive allegations, I will first address the server shifts at DGS Event Staffing in late July, which could not be verified by Detective Lee through his investigation.
The Crown submits that the offender actively misled the conditional sentence supervisor when she sought exceptions to her house arrest to attend those shifts.
Although I found the officer to have been professional and diligent, I accepted Ms. Kent’s submission that Detective Lee’s verification was incomplete: while he appears to have been aware that the offender was also working for a second staffing agency, called Faur, he confirmed the late July shifts only with DGS management.
Ms. Kent pointed to an email from the officer to Ms. Ayelazuno which suggests that he knew the offender worked with more than one agency.
To corroborate her employment with Faur, the defence filed two paystubs, which Ms. Kent verified against bank deposits. I accepted counsel’s confirmation of the deposited funds on behalf of her client.
The overall impact of that evidence was sufficient to conclude that the July shifts which could not be verified through DGS Event Staffing could have been Faur shifts. Therefore, the allegation that Ms. Ayelazuno actively misled her conditional sentence supervisor about her late July shifts has not been established.
JOEY Restaurants
I came to a different conclusion in relation to Ms. Ayelazuno’s purported employment at JOEY Restaurants - I concluded that she actively misled her conditional sentence supervisor. To be clear, I did not believe the offender’s testimony in relation to the material facts in dispute in this hearing. Specifically, Ms. Ayelazuno’s evidence was contradicted by other evidence that I accepted.
The offender testified that she completed two orientation shifts in April 2025. She faxed those paystubs to her conditional sentence supervisor. That paystub, as noted, was for a two-week period and showed a net value of $256.17 paid to Lily Ayelazuno. The amount on the face of the paystub is plausible. Of significance, however, is that the paystub includes a year-to-date amount of $1,728.59, which is incompatible with her claim of only two days worked in 2025.
When confronted with this glaring discrepancy, Ms. Ayelazuno provided no explanation, suggesting that the inquiry be directed to JOEY Restaurants payroll.
While I appreciate that the onus is on the Crown to establish a breach of the conditional sentence, Ms. Ayelazuno had ample opportunity to confirm the veracity of the paystub by showing a direct deposit to her bank account of the funds from JOEY Restaurants. She never did. I note that she had no objection to providing that corroboration in other instances with the assistance of Ms. Kent - for example, confirming employment through direct deposits from Colliers for instance.
Where documentary evidence is challenged, the availability or absence of objective corroboration - in this case, a bank statement - is a relevant consideration in assessing credibility.
I further note that Mr. Jebaili testified that he sent the disputed paystub to his organization’s payroll, and payroll confirmed that the paystub was “not issued on those dates.”
Indeed, even without the paystub discrepancies, I would have come to the same conclusion - Ms. Ayelazuno never worked at JOEY Restaurants as she maintains.
I accepted Mr. Jebaili’s evidence that he did not work with Ms. Ayelazuno after 2020, and that she did not work at his location in 2025.
The Fraudulent Emails
The offender testified that after sentencing on May 8, 2025, a GPS ankle monitor was installed and given JOEY’s dress uniform, she could not conceal the monitor. She said she emailed Mr. Jebaili to go on short-term leave rather than attempt to work while visibly monitored. This correspondence is relevant because she relies on it in support of her application to vary the conditional sentence, saying that the monitor’s presence undermined her ability to be gainfully employed.
The correspondence was shown to Mr. Jebaili. He testified that he never sent nor received those messages. Ms. Ayelazuno fabricated the email correspondence and filed it with this court.
I want to briefly address Ms. Ayelazuno’s testimony as it relates to any motive Mr. Jebaili may have had to contour his evidence.
Ms. Ayelazuno testified that a fellow server named Tremika - a friend in whom she confided - told the witness about her legal challenges, and further that Tremika surreptitiously recorded her sentencing hearing before this court on May 8 and shared it with JOEY staff. The suggestion - a theme picked up by Ms. Kent in her submissions - is that this somehow coloured Mr. Jebaili’s evidence.
On this point, Andrew Jebaili denied that a server named “Tremika” worked at JOEY Markville and said that the only time he learned of the allegations was when he was contacted by Detective Constable Lee, and not through his staff. This is believable.
I rejected the suggestion of animus. Indeed, I found Ms. Ayelazuno’s evidence on this point to be fanciful and untrue. I detected no ill-will or disguised motive. Mr. Jebaili has had no contact with the offender for five years. They had a professional, employment-based relationship. His evidence was straightforward and factual. I further note that the witness is seemingly a career manager at the JOEY Restaurants chain. It does not make sense, and it is unclear for what purpose, he would lie about her employment status, especially given modern employment record-keeping at large chains that would easily expose such a falsehood.
On a balance of probabilities, the Crown has established that Ms. Ayelazuno did not work at JOEY Restaurant Group in 2025, including the two April “orientation” shifts she describes. The court further finds that the JOEY paystub is not authentic.
Accordingly, any representation to the conditional sentence supervisor or to this court that Ms. Ayelazuno had current employment at JOEY Restaurants in 2025 is not accepted.
There is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the Salesforce paystub was fabricated.
Findings
I am, therefore, satisfied that the Crown has established on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Ayelazuno has breached her conditional sentence. Indeed, I would conclude that the evidence supporting that determination is overwhelming.
Specifically, I have found that the offender forged an employment contract and paystub with UHN for the purpose of misleading her conditional sentence supervisor about her employment. The purpose of her actions was to secure non-existent employment exceptions to the house arrest condition of her conditional sentence. The fact that the conditional sentence supervisor did not authorize the exception does not significantly mitigate the seriousness of the offender’s actions.
I further find that she forged a paystub indicating that she was employed at JOEY Restaurants for the purpose of misleading her conditional sentence supervisor.
I further find that she fabricated email correspondence with the general manager of JOEY Restaurants Markville to support her request for a variation of the terms of her conditional sentence.
As a result of these findings, she has breached the following conditions of her conditional sentence: keep the peace and be of good behaviour; notify the court or supervisor in advance of any change in employment or occupation; and the home confinement condition, which allows an exception for employment.
To be clear, I have determined that while bound by a conditional sentence, this offender committed further criminal offences, albeit on a balance of probabilities - specifically, that she uttered a forged document and obstructed justice.
G. Positions of the Parties
Ms. Duffy submits that the offender repeatedly lied to her conditional sentence supervisor and attempted to mislead this court in order to defeat the house arrest and GPS components of her CSO, and that she committed further offences, which demonstrates that she is not suitable for the resumption of a conditional sentence. She seeks a full collapse of the remaining period left on the order, which is 21 months.
The defence urges this court not to terminate the conditional sentence. Ms. Kent highlights Ms. Ayelazuno’s current employment with Colliers and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and her ongoing educational efforts. She highlights the offender’s counselling efforts, which are a benefit of working at Colliers. Ms. Ayelazuno also referred to her efforts in counselling when she addressed this court.
Ms. Kent points out that the offender’s actions - as noted, she conceded a breach in relation to the UHN allegations - did not result in a financial loss to that organization. She submits that this court consider varying the conditions of the conditional sentence as they relate to verifiable employment or, in the alternative, consider partial custody with the resumption of the order. She argues that sending Ms. Ayelazuno to jail would essentially make her start all over again and would undermine her prospects for rehabilitation.
H. Relevant Legal Principles
Where the court is satisfied that an offender has, without reasonable excuse, breached a condition of a CSO, the court may: (a) take no action; (b) change the optional conditions; (c) suspend the CSO and direct that a portion be served in custody, with a resumption of the order; or (d) terminate the CSO and commit the offender to custody for the balance of the sentence. This sliding scale of remedies requires an individualized assessment guided by the sentencing principles outlined in the Criminal Code and the time remaining in the order.
The starting point on sentencing in these circumstances is that the presumed consequence of a breach of a conditional sentence is its termination, with the remainder of the term to be served in jail. As the Supreme Court explained in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at para. 39:
[W]here an offender breaches a condition without a reasonable excuse, there should be a presumption that the offender serve the remainder of his or her sentence in jail. This constant threat of incarceration will help to ensure that the offender complies with the conditions imposed. It also assists in distinguishing the conditional sentence from probation by making the consequences of a breach of condition more severe.
Because the presumption of incarceration is rebuttable, not every breach need attract such a disposition - see also the discussion in R. v. Antaya, 2022 ONCA 819.
In R. v. Ramsaran, [2008] O.J. No. 3163 (S.C.J.), a decision that is often cited in breach hearings, Hill J. set out a legal framework for a sentencing judge to consider when determining the appropriate remedy for a breach of a conditional sentence.
The factors for consideration, which Hill J. draws from the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. T.E.L., 2005 BCCA 478, include - and this is not an exhaustive list - the seriousness of the breach, the pattern and timing of the breach, the connection of the breach to the underlying offence, proportionality, and public confidence.
I. Analysis
Applying these principles, I have come to the following conclusions. The nature of the breaches strikes at the heart of the conditional sentence order. It was a concerted effort on the part of the offender to undermine core conditions of the order. It involved new criminal conduct - falsifying employment contracts and paystubs to mislead the conditional sentence supervisor and the effective supervision of the order. Ms. Ayelazuno’s actions in this regard weigh towards termination.
Aggravating is the timing of the breach. Almost upon imposition of the order, Ms. Ayelazuno planned and schemed to undermine the sentence. On May 16, 2025 - eight days after she was sentenced - she lied to Ms. Malek, telling her she was employed at UHN. Four days later, she sent a fax to her supervisor with falsified paystubs and a UHN services contract. It is clear that Ms. Ayelazuno from the outset had no intention of abiding by the conditions of the sentence imposed by this court.
I further note that there are multiple instances of deceit involving some level of sophistication, as well as effort and planning. Her actions are connected to the underlying offence. Although I appreciate that no funds were involved, at its heart it was a continuation of the offender’s previous fraudulent behaviour.
On the issue of proportionality, I acknowledge that collapsing a CSO can, in some instances, yield a custodial outcome that is longer than what might have been imposed at the initial sentence hearing. No such concern exists in this case. In my view, the conditional sentence imposed in the first instance was at the lower end of the range of possible outcomes. Jail was an appropriate and available disposition. The conditional sentence was imposed in part based on my conclusion that the offender had prospects for rehabilitation and the fact that she had made restitution efforts. At the time of sentencing, Ms. Ayelazuno had a related criminal record starting in 2019 for identity fraud, and she then defrauded the charity, Ovarian Cancer Canada, while in a position of trust. Those are aggravating features that favour jail.
I have also considered public confidence in the conditional sentence regime. That principle is emphasized in Proulx, although it is just one factor, and courts should be cautious not to overweight its significance.
As Hill J. stated in Ramsaran:
Segments of the public remain suspicious that conditional sentences are not imprisonment and that terms of the orders are not rigorously enforced. Breach hearing dispositions should contribute to the public confidence in s. 742.1 sentences.
I accept that the legitimacy of the conditional sentence regime is in part dependent on the public’s confidence that a conditional sentence is a credible alternative to jail, and that when such an order is undermined, serious consequences should follow. It serves to preserve the credibility of the sentencing option and respect for court orders.
I have considered rehabilitation, as well as the other relevant sentencing principles outlined in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. They are applicable in fashioning an appropriate sentence in circumstances where a conditional sentence has been breached.
Ms. Kent emphasized the strides Ms. Ayelazuno has made, focusing on her access to therapy and counselling. Although counsel made a compelling argument, my assessment is that this offender’s prospects for rehabilitation are dim. She has shown little insight into her actions and, in my view, given the brazen nature of her deceit in this case, there is a risk of recidivism and future harm.
It is not lost on me that Ms. Ayelazuno made material false declarations in her application before this court to support a variation of her conditional sentence. I have no faith that she would abide by the terms if there were a resumption of the CSO.
I have considered this offender’s recent medical history, which I need not outline in these reasons. There were accommodations made for Ms. Ayelazuno to attend to her medical needs during the breach hearing phase. I did not conclude that there were medical circumstances in this case that would justify a non-custodial sentence.
Ms. Ayelazuno, I want to address you directly. Frankly, I am disappointed with how things have unfolded.
As I stated in the sentencing hearing just eight months ago, I found you to be impressive. And I say that because you are smart. I was impressed by your work at the UN on gender issues. I was impressed by what you told me about your educational and your work ambitions and wanting to change your life.
But what I have realized is that what you say and what you do is inconsistent.
And in the end, it does not matter how bright and talented you are, it won’t amount to much if you are fundamentally dishonest, which is the conclusion I have arrived at.
As I was reflecting on your evidence, I was struck by the amount of effort you put into misleading your conditional sentence supervisor and this court - you fabricated emails, you fabricated employment contracts and paystubs. But if you had just put that much effort and energy into pro-social conduct, given what I know of you, you would have some really positive outcomes in your life. Instead, you find yourself back in this courtroom being sentenced.
J. Disposition
I have determined that the facts of this case call out for one clear outcome. The proven breaches are egregious and calculated.
Accordingly, and pursuant to s. 742.6(9)(d) of the Criminal Code, the conditional sentence is terminated, and Ms. Ayelazuno is committed to custody until the expiration of the sentence, a period of 21 months.
The probation, restitution and ancillary orders remain in place.
I want to thank Ms. Duffy and Ms. Kent for the professional manner in which this matter was litigated and for their thoughtful submissions. It did not go unnoticed.
H.S. Amarshi J.