ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Date: 2022 06 10 Court File No.: Metro North, Toronto Region 20-15001498 21-4500936

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

Hakeem THOMAS

Before: Justice Cidalia Faria

Heard on: November 24, 2021, March 10, May 31, 2022 Reasons for Sentence Released: June 10, 2022

Counsel: Martin Sabat, counsel for the Crown Daisy McCabe-Lokos, counsel for the accused Hakeem Thomas

Faria J.:

I. Introduction and Overview

[1] On November 24, 2021, Mr. Thomas pled guilty before me to Robbery, Weapons Dangerous and Failing to Comply with a Release (possession of weapon) for offences committed on March 5, 2020. He also pled guilty to Assault with a Weapon, Possession of a Weapon, Failing to Comply with a Release (house arrest) and Theft under $5000, offences that were committed on October 10, 2020. Trial dates were vacated.

[2] Both parties requested an adjournment to obtain a Pre-Sentence Report, an Impact of Race and Culture Report and Victim Impact Statements.

[3] The matter returned on March 10, 2022. Given the extensive content of the Pre-Sentence Report and the cost of an Impact of Race and Culture Report, counsel for Mr. Thomas did not obtain the latter and only relied on the former. The Crown advised the victims of the first set of offences declined to provide statements and the victim of the second set was not located.

[4] The parties were not ad idem on sentencing. The Crown was recommending 15-month sentence that required additional custodial time, and the Defence was recommending time served as a result of pre-sentence calculations and Mr. Thomas’ rehabilitation potential. This potential, she submitted, was not actualized during the 19 months Mr. Thomas was on release because his conditions were too onerous.

[5] As a result, I varied Mr. Thomas’ Release Order. The Court removed both the electronic bracelet condition and the house arrest condition. The Court imposed a modest curfew of 12 midnight to 6:00am with exceptions. This variation was to allow Mr. Thomas to engage in the productive rehabilitation his counsel referred to in her submissions.

[6] On May 31, 2022, Mr. Thomas appeared before me and provided a letter from an employer advising Mr. Thomas had started work on April 22, 2022 as a general labourer and worked 80 hours bi-weekly [1].

[7] The Court adjourned to provide reasons for sentence. These are my reasons.

II. The Facts

[8] On March 5, 2020, officers were called by Deann and Waley Gao to 291 Spadina, a Bank of Montreal. The Gaos advised they had posted on Kijiji 2, an online buy and sell forum, “Off White Jordan Five” running shoes for sale with an asking price of $1100 each. They met with Mr. Thomas and an unidentified associate who attended the location to buy the shoes. Once they inspected the shoes and had them in their possession, they pushed the Gaos and exited the bank vestibule, fleeing south on Spadina. Waley Gao believed one of the men to be holding a black firearm in his right hand.

[9] The next day, officers found one pair of the stolen shoes listed for sale on Kijiji. They contacted the seller posing as a buyer and met with Mr. Thomas. After confirming the shoes in his possession were the same shoes as those of the Gaos’, Mr. Thomas was arrested for the robbery. On Mr. Thomas’ outer right jacket pocket, police located a black imitation firearm. At that time, Mr. Thomas was on a Release with the condition not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

[10] Mr. Thomas was released on March 12, 2020, again with a condition not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code, and, on a condition to remain in his residence within his unit. While on this Release, Mr. Thomas committed the second set of offences.

[11] On October 9, 2020, Amaree Rumble intended to sell a pair of collectible running shoes and posted a ‘for sale’ ad on Kijiji. He communicated with a person self named ‘Damion’ and decided to meet him the following day.

[12] On Oct 10, 2020, Mr. Thomas and an unidentified associate attended […] Jane Street and met Mr. Rumble. Once Mr. Thomas’ unidentified associate inspected the shoes and had them in his possession, he instructed Mr. Thomas to pay. At this time both Mr. Thomas and his associate began to flee. Mr. Rumble attempted to retrieve his shoes. Mr. Thomas then pushed a gun into Mr. Rumble’s left side. Mr. Rumble let go and retreated. As Mr. Thomas and his associate fled, Mr. Rumble observed Mr. Thomas to be in possession of a black handgun, what he believed to be a revolver. Both men successfully fled, but Mr. Thomas returned to the area and was observed on building surveillance.

[13] Officers investigated and located the stolen property back up for sale on Facebook Marketplace. Officers contacted the seller and arranged to meet. On October 11, 2020, officers located Mr. Thomas and arrested him. The shoes were in his backpack. One pair of Jordan One running shoes were recovered with a value of $2500.

[14] Mr. Thomas spent 7 days in custody after his first arrest in March 2020. He spent another 110 days in custody after his October 2020 arrest. Finally, he spent an additional 27 days in custody after his arrest on April 6, 2021, for a total of 144 days in pre-sentence custody.

III. Position of the Parties

[15] Both parties agree Mr. Thomas’ 144 days in pre-trial custody should receive be enhanced by 1.5 pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 which amounts to 216 days enhanced pre-sentence credit.

[16] The Crown recommends a 15-month jail sentence minus pre-sentence custody submitting a further 7.8 months of incarceration to serve. His submission is that the first 3 offences committed in March 2020 attract 6 months jail and the four offences of October 2020 attract 12 months jail consecutive. The total of 18 months jail should be reduced to 15 months in consideration of the principle of totality. In addition, the Crown recommends a 2-year probation with terms, a DNA Order, a s.109 weapons prohibition for 10 years and forfeiture of the seized imitation firearm.

[17] The Crown submits the guiding principles are specific and general deterrence, as well as denunciation, particularly given the nature of the offences, the fact there are two sets, and the second set were committed while Mr. Thomas was on a release for similar conduct. Mr. Sabat filed photos [2] of the imitation firearm located on Mr. Thomas in support of his position. He also notes Mr. Thomas has good familial support, and these crimes were not committed because of financial need.

[18] The Defence recommends time served. Ms. McCabe-Lokos submits that in addition to the 7.2 months pre-sentence custody as credited by Summers, 61 of the days in jail were served under lockdown conditions and should be considered on a 1 to 1 basis amounting to an additional 2 months served pursuant to R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. She then submits Mr. Thomas’ pre-sentence custody was also served under pandemic conditions in the Toronto South Detention Centre which should be considered for an additional 2 months of credit. Moreover, as Mr. Thomas was on strict bail conditions for 19 months, she submits pursuant to R. v. Downes, [2006] O.J. No. 555, the Court should consider as an additional credit of 6 months.

[19] The Defence summits that under this recommended analysis, Mr. Thomas’ actual 144 days (4.2 months) in pre-sentence custody is to be enhanced to 17 months, which is more than the Crown’s recommendation, and thus Mr. Thomas is in a time served position.

[20] In addition, Ms. McCabe-Lokos emphasized Mr. Thomas’ background, his age and his rehabilitation prospects. In support of her position, she filed a Pre-Sentence Report [3], two letters from the John Howard Society [4], [5], a Toronto South Detention Centre Lock-Down Summary [6], and an Affidavit [7] of Mr. Thomas as to the conditions he experienced in the jail.

IV. Circumstances of Mr. Thomas

[21] Mr. Thomas was 18 at the time he committed both sets of offences and is now 20 years old. He has no criminal record.

[22] The Pre-Sentence Report is very detailed. I am informed Mr. Thomas is the eldest of three step siblings, two on his mother’s side and one on his father’s. He was born to a teenage mother who required assistance to raise him and so he was sent to Jamaica to be raised by his maternal grandmother within months of being born. He has no relationship with his father who does not live in Canada. Mr. Thomas returned to Canada when he was five years old and resided with his mother and her partner. His mother was employed, he had a positive relationship with her and her partner, and he was well cared for during his childhood.

[23] Mr. Thomas’ positive and supportive home environment continued into his teenage years. He was not exposed to any form of violence, abuse, or criminal activity within his home. Finances were tight, but Mr. Thomas was provided with what he needed.

[24] His community environment however was not a positive one. I am informed that while living in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood, the “close-knit” community experienced a “deadly shooting” that divided the “southside” and the “northside”. Gun violence was prevalent as was negative peer pressure to engage in illegitimate activities. Upon entering high school Mr. Thomas’ behaviour was affected by this environment. To eliminate these negative influences, Mr. Thomas’ mother prohibited him from attending a particular high school known for “gang activity/politics” and made him change schools.

[25] Although Mr. Thomas did obtain his high-school diploma, played basketball, was not bullied, had no substance use problems, and no mental health issues, he did not take advantage of that positive environment. He “lost focus”, “did just enough” to pass, and “lacked motivation” to do well and continue his studies. Instead, he worked in a call center during high school for 8 months, and then in a factory for 3 months. He was unemployed as of March 10, 2022, receiving benefits, and spending his time playing video games and assisting his mother with his siblings.

[26] Mr. Thomas’ choices during high school significantly hindered his potential as a talented basketball player. He was MVP in both grade 10 and grade 11 on a successful team. His interaction with the criminal justice system interrupted his path to success in sport.

[27] Mr. Thomas demonstrated some insight in his discussions with the Pre-Sentence Report author. He expressed some empathy toward the victims, wished to make amends, and felt “bad” as his “taking people’s stuff” had them “possibly more scared about things in life” and that he is “disappointed” in himself as he “knows right from wrong” [8]. He seems to understand that his decision to associate with certain peers have led him to this criminal activity. Indeed, it is of note, that both sets of offences were committed with an unidentified associate.

[28] Mr. Thomas’ efforts to rehabilitate himself were demonstrated by a letter dated July 27, 2021 from the John Howard Society authored by the Employment Case Manager. He confirmed Mr. Thomas had enrolled in the employment program called Youth Training to Employment which was to start on August 9, 2021. He advised Mr. Thomas would be able to complete the first 6 weeks of the program virtually but was requesting to know whether Mr. Thomas’ release conditions would be modified for him to attend the in-person 8 week on the job sessions [9]. It appears that Mr. Thomas’ Release was not varied, and he did not complete that program. Counsel also submitted he wished to enroll in the real estate agent program at Humber College and had been unable to.

V. Objectives of Sentencing

[29] The criminal law is a system of values and sentencing is meant to reflect and reinforce the basic values of our society. In this case, it is critically important that robberies and assaults with the use of a weapon that imitates a firearm not become ‘normalized’, but rather conduct that is denounced and unacceptable.

[30] The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender pursuant to s.718.1 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the offences are serious, and the degree of Mr. Thomas’ responsibility high.

[31] The sanction I impose is to have the following objectives:

• denounce this unlawful conduct
• deter Mr. Thomas and other persons from robbing innocent people, particularly with weapons that look like firearms
• separate Mr. Thomas from society as necessary
• assist Mr. Thomas in rehabilitating himself
• provide reparations for harm he did to victims and the community
• promote a sense of responsibility in Mr. Thomas and acknowledgment of the harm he did to the three victims and to the community.

[32] How much emphasis I place on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the Mr. Thomas. I must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors, and fashion a fit sentence that is specific to Mr. Thomas.

Aggravating Factors

Nature and Circumstances of the Offences

[33] In my view, a serious aggravating factor is that Mr. Thomas had an item that looked like, and he used as if, it was a firearm. The photos of the imitation firearm seized from Mr. Thomas leave no doubt as to its similarity to a real firearm, particularly to an unsuspecting person.

[34] In further aggravation, he undertook the same conduct twice, 7 months apart, the first time while under Release conditions not to possess weapons, and the second time while on more strict Release.

[35] Both sets of offences were planned and deliberate. Neither was an impulsive endeavour demonstrating lack of judgment – quite the opposite.

[36] There is an element of commercial enterprise and greed. The items stolen were of high-end value and their re-sale only possible to a discerning buyer with financial access. The Pre-Sentence Report refers to Mr. Thomas’ limited financial means but this conduct demonstrates a level of sophistication and appears unconnected to obtaining any basic daily needs, substance dependency or mental health issue.

[37] Although there were no Victim Impact Statements, from the narrative and circumstances of the offences as well as the photos of the imitation weapon located on Mr. Thomas, I infer that each victim experienced fear in the act of simply trying to sell some shoes.

Mitigating Factors

Guilty Plea

[38] A guilty plea is always a mitigating factor. This was not an early one though. The matter was judicially pre-tried in February 2021 and September 2021. Nonetheless, Mr. Thomas’ plea demonstrates he takes responsibility and is accountable for his actions. It demonstrates remorse, and he verbalized the same with the author of the Pre-Sentence Report.

[39] Of significance, Counsel submitted, and the Crown did not dispute, there were triable issues in both sets of charges. These trials, potentially litigating Charter issues, would have used significant judicial resources as a time when these resources are strained and limited because of the Covid-19 pandemic and its effect on the criminal justice system.

[40] In addition, the guilty plea obviated the attendance of the victims who did not have to attend court and testify which would have both inconvenience them and required them to re-tell their experience of having been robbed.

Age

[41] Of considerable significance is Mr. Thomas’ age. At 20, he is a youthful first offender. The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed this consideration in R. v. Priest (1996) “where a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence”.

[42] Granted these are serious violent offences, however, no one sustained injuries, and the weapon was an imitation, even for all its similar features to a firearm. Mr. Thomas did spend significant time in jail on these offences. In fact, the Pre-Sentence Report remarked that though Mr. Thomas does not suffer from any mental illness, he did have “suicidal thoughts while he was in custody” [11]. This demonstrates the heavy impact of incarceration on a youthful first offender and the applicability of the principle of restraint when considering further incarceration, imposing it only as necessary.

Lockdowns & Pandemic Conditions

[43] Of 144 days Mr. Thomas spent at the Toronto South Detention center, 61 were served in partial or full lockdown. Only 3 were the result of maintenance or security reasons, 58 were because of staff shortages. Mr. Thomas’ access was restricted to fresh air outside in the yard, the use of the telephone, showers, and visits from family and friends, if he had access at all. The Superintendent may cancel phone use and shower availability. When Mr. Thomas did have access to the phone and a shower during lockdown, he had to choose one or the other as during lockdowns inmates only have such access for 30 minutes [12]. This total is 42% of his time in jail spent in these conditions.

[44] It is noteworthy these lockdowns are the result of staff shortages, and as such are a human resources management issue. Courts have repeatedly articulated the detrimental effect of such conditions on those awaiting trial and that these conditions are punitive and inhumane which thus affect the determination of a fit sentence such as in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188.

[45] Mr. Thomas’ affidavit speaks to the experience of these lockdowns on him. “Sometimes we are locked down for days and days in a row. … We spend all day in the cell. We are in the cell with our cell mate the whole time. The cells are very small. You can almost touch both sides when you stretch your arms.” [13] This is therefore a significant mitigating factor.

[46] Another mitigating factor is the public health restrictions in congregate settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there was no evidence of the number of lockdowns, or the types of restrictions imposed at the Toronto South Detention Centre during the time Mr. Thomas was in custody, in his Affidavit he states: “On top of normal lockdowns, we had COVID lockdowns too while I was in custody. This would happen if someone on our range had symptoms or was waiting for a test. During COVID restrictions we also do not have any programming. We were not able to do course or anything like that. Our access to privileges like phone is limited. It was stressful because there was always a chance, we could get sick. During COVID times we did not always have good sanitation or masks. The only time we got masks was when were off the range. It made my time in custody more difficult for sure.” [14] This evidence was undisputed. All of society experienced limitations and hardship during the pandemic, those in custody particularly so.

[47] I decline however to make specific mathematical ‘credit’ calculations to these mitigating factors of lockdowns and Covid-19 condition. As stated in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 144 at paragraphs 52 and 53:

[52] Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

[53] Often times a specific number of days or months are given as “Duncan” credit. While this quantification is not necessarily inappropriate, it may skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. By quantifying the “Duncan” credit, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there is a risk the “Duncan” credit will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the “Summers” credit. If treated in that way, the “Duncan” credit can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R v. J.B. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.).

Restrictive Release Conditions

[48] The 19 months Mr. Thomas spent under strict house arrest conditions and an electronic bracelet monitoring his movements while he was on Release is also to be considered. These conditions, pursuant to both the Pre-Sentence Report and the letters from the John Howard Society negatively impacted Mr. Thomas’ ability to work, go to school and rehabilitate himself. In addition, I appreciate that for a healthy active young man of 18-20 years old, superimposed on the already demanding public health measures limiting mobility and services, to be house-bound in an apartment with his younger siblings, his mother and her partner was difficult.

Social Context

[49] Mr. Thomas is a youthful Black man who has grown up in an environment of limited financial means, ‘gang activity/politics, and gun violence. I am mindful of the opening paragraph in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 which states:

[1] It is beyond doubt that anti-Black racism, including both overt and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continue to be, a reality in Canadian society, and in particular in the Greater Toronto Area. That reality is reflected in many social institutions, most notably the criminal justice system. It is equally clear that anti-Black racism can have a profound and insidious impact on those who must endure it on a daily basis…Anti-Black racism must be acknowledge, confronted, mitigated and, ultimately, erased.

[50] This social context applies to Mr. Thomas. Although he has had a strong, perceptive, supportive and involved mother who has intervened and directed him away from the worst of his environmental influences, they have nonetheless negatively affected his choices as an adolescent and very young adult.

[51] It is significant that when the Release conditions were eased, Mr. Thomas was able to obtain and maintain fulltime employment. He is a high school graduate with athletic ability, and talent yet untapped. General labour is unlikely what he wants to do. Forty hours a week of it after months of inactivity has likely not been easy. That he is doing such work demonstrates that when motivated, Mr. Thomas can do what needs to be done to distance himself from a social context that has negatively impacted him.

Balance

[52] The Crown’s position of a 15-month jail sentence as a fit sentence for these offences was not an unreasonable one, even for a first offender, given the aggravating features of the offences. The Defence position was a mathematically creative one but an unrealistic calculation, and one that did not address the seriousness of the offences and the principle of denunciation, again, even for a youthful first offender.

[53] These are disturbing offences committed by a youthful offender who can be easily slipping into a life of crime – because that is what his friends are doing. This is parents’ nightmare. However, Mr. Thomas’ getting a full-time job, in my view, demonstrates he can turn his life around and rehabilitate himself. Stepping into custody would not assist that objective, and certainly may significantly derail it.

[54] It is with this in mind that the Court turns to the question of whether a Conditional Sentence is an appropriate and fit sentence for Mr. Thomas.

[55] The first question is to determine whether a Conditional Sentence is available. The test as articulated by the Supreme Court in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at paragraph 77 states:

Once a sentencing judge has found the offender guilty of an offence for which there is no minimum term of imprisonment, has rejected both a probationary sentence and a penitentiary term as inappropriate, and is satisfied that the offender would not endanger the community, the judge must then consider whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2

[56] There is no minimum term of custody required for these offences. The gravity of the offences renders time served, or a suspended sentence inappropriate. The circumstances, however, also do not warrant a penitentiary sentence and the Crown does not recommend one. Although Mr. Thomas did Fail to Comply with a Release Order, he was able to comply with a very strict Release without a breach for 11 months (April 2021 to March 2022) and then with very few conditions for 3 more months (March 2022 to June 2022) he has been able to engage in pro-social activities with both the John Howard Society and obtaining employment. He is remorseful, has some insight, and should he be in the community, there is recent history to rely on that he will not put the community in danger.

[57] Turning to whether a Conditional Sentence addresses the fundamental purpose of the sentencing principles to be considered, the Supreme Court indicated in Proulx at paragraph 22:

The conditional sentence incorporates some elements of non-custodial measures and some others of incarceration. Because it is served in the community, it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

[58] I find that after considering all the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the exhibits filed, the nature and circumstances of the offences, the specific social context of Mr. Thomas, and in view of the principles of proportionality, totality, restraint, and rehabilitation as well as denunciation and deterrence, I conclude that a Conditional Sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing in this case.

VI. Sentence

[59] I find that 144 days of pre-sentence custody is to be enhanced to 216 days. Mr. Thomas will serve an additional 149 days Conditional Sentence. The total sentence value of 365 days (1 year) is apportioned as follows:

• Robbery: 216 days, time served Weapons Dangerous: 60 days consecutive to Robbery Fail to Comply with Release: 60 days concurrent
• Assault with a Weapon: 216 days, time served concurrent with Robbery Possession of a Weapon: 89 days consecutive to Weapons Dangerous Fail Comply with Release: 89 days concurrent to Possession of a weapon Theft Under: 30 days concurrent

[60] For the first 60 days of the Conditional Sentence, Mr. Thomas to be inside his residence except for:

• Medical emergencies & legal obligations
• Education, attending to, from and during such education
• Employment, going to, from and during such employment
• counselling for life skills, and any counselling requested by Mr. Thomas, attending, to, from and during
• 4 hours on Saturday for personal needs & 4 hours on Sunday for personal needs
• When in the direct presence of mother

[61] The remaining 89 days there shall be a curfew of 12 midnight to 6:00 am with exceptions for medical, legal, education, employment purposes or in direct presence of his mother.

[62] During the Conditional Sentence Mr. Thomas will:

• Report to a Conditional Sentence Supervisor as directed
• Reside at an address approved by the Supervisor and not change that address without the consent of such Supervisor
• Have no contact with Amaree Rumble, Deann Gao, Waley Gao and Jolorn Samuel
• Not to be within 200m of where Amaree Rumble, Deann Gao, Waley Gao and Jolorn live, work, go to school, worship, or are known by you to be
• Have no weapons in your possession as defined by the Criminal Code
• Not apply for a licence, registration or certificate for firearms
• Attend and actively participate in
  • counselling and/or programs for life skills
  • counselling and/or programs as requested by Mr. Thomas
• Sign any necessary releases to ensure the attendance and completion of any counselling and/or programs as referred to by Probation
• Seek and maintain employment, and provide proof of such efforts or employment

[63] I order Mr. Thomas to a 2-year period of probation with the following terms:

• Report to a Probation Officer as directed
• Reside at an address approved by your Probation Officer and not change that address without the consent of your probation officer
• Have no contact with Amaree Rumble, Deann Gao, Waley Gao, Jolorn Samuel
• Not to be within 200m of where Amaree Rumble, Deann Gao, Waley Gao, and Jolorn live, work, go to school, worship, or are known by you to be
• Have no weapons in your possession as defined by the Criminal Code
• Not apply for a licence, registration or certificate for firearms
• Attend and actively participate in
  • counselling and/or programs for life skills
  • counselling and/or programs as requested by Mr. Thomas
• Sign any necessary releases to ensure the attendance and completion of any counselling and/or programs as referred to by Probation

[64] Having been convicted of assault with a weapon, and robbery, both primary designated offences, and weapons dangerous, a secondary designated offence, and given the nature of the offences, the circumstances of the offences and the minimal impact on privacy and security of the person, I order DNA pursuant to s. 487.04.

[65] I order Mr. Thomas be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance effective today and for the next 10 years pursuant to s. 109.

[66] I order the imitation firearm seized from Mr. Thomas to forfeited pursuant to s. 490(1) seized property.

[67] I waive the Victim Fine Surcharge as Mr. Thomas is trying to get on his feet financially and imposing it would cause undue hardship.

[68] The charge of Fail to Comply with a Release on April 6, 2021, is withdrawn at the request of the Crown as are all other charges not pled to.

[69] I thank both Counsel for their extensive and considered submissions.

[70] Mr. Thomas, this is a lenient sentence. You have seen the inside of a cell; I hope you never see the inside of another. I hope you turn your life around.

Released: June 10, 2022 Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria

[1] Exhibit 7: Newatart Family Corp. employment letter, A. Morgan [2] Exhibit 6: Photos of black imitation firearm located on Mr. Thomas on his arrest on March 6, 2020 [3] Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence Report Hakeem Horacio THOMAS, February 22, 2022, authored by Probation Officer Alic Obeng-Asare [4] Exhibit 2: John Howard Society letter, dated July 27, 2021 YT2E, authored by Gilber Kandawasvika [5] Exhibit 3: John Howard Society letter, dated July 27, 2021, authored by Employment Case Manager, Gilbert Kandawasvika [6] Exhibit 4: Toronto South Detention Centre Lockdown Summary, THOMAS, Hakeem #1001299733, March 6, 2020 to May 4, 2020 [7] Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Hakeem THOMAS, March 10, 2022 [8] Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence Report at pages 5 & 6. [9] Exhibits 2 & 3: Letters from John Howard Society, July 27, 2021, Gilbert Kandawasvika [10] R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA) , 110 CCC (3d) 289 (Ont.C.A.) [11] Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence Report at page 6 [12] Exhibit 4: Toronto South Detention Centre Lockdown Summary [13] Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Hakeem Thomas, March 10, 2022, paragraph 3 [14] Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Hakeem Thomas, March 10, 2022, paragraphs 4, 5 & 7