ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2023 06 09 COURT FILE No.: Brampton 21-2305
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
â AND â
WILTON WILLIAMS
Before: Justice Paul F. Monahan
Plea on: December 21, 2022 Sentencing Submissions on: May 4, 2023 Written Reasons for Sentence released on: June 9, 2023
Counsel: E. Perchenok......................................................... Public Prosecution Service of Canada M. Hogan........................................................... counsel for the accused Wilton Williams
MONAHAN J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Wilton Williams pled guilty before me to one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl contrary to section 5 (2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (âCDSAâ).
[2] The facts are that on September 7, 2020, Mr. Williams and another person were sitting in a vehicle parked at 67 David Street in the City of Brampton. The police approached and spoke to Mr. Williams. According to the police, they saw cannabis in plain view. This led to a detention pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act. The vehicle was searched and 14.27 grams of fentanyl (which included cutting agent), 3.1 grams of cocaine (in various baggies) and 180 grams of cannabis was located. The parties agree that the fentanyl had value of approximately $1,000 to $3,000.
[3] I note that Mr. Williams only pled guilty to the possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl but the additional facts regarding the 3.1 grams of cocaine and the 180 grams of cannabis were read in as aggravating.
Position of the Parties
[4] The Crown seeks a three-year penitentiary sentence plus a DNA order and a section 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years.
[5] For its part, the defence seeks a conditional sentence of two years less a day. They take no issue with the DNA and section 109 orders requested by the Crown.
Enhanced Presentence Report and other documents filed - Circumstances of the Offender
[6] I have had the benefit of an enhanced presentence report (âEPSRâ) prepared by Ms. Michelle Richards, BA, BSW, MSW, RSW. The EPSR was marked as an exhibit on the sentencing and forms part of the evidence to be considered on the sentencing. In addition, I have also had the benefit of numerous character letters from friends and family members which were also marked as exhibits. This section of my reasons relies both on the EPSR but also on the character letters.
[7] Mr. Williams was 25 years old when he committed the offence he pled guilty to. Mr. Williams is Black. His parents were both born in Jamaica. His mother was 16 years old when she came to Canada and his father was 11 years old when he came. His parents remain married.
[8] The EPSR indicates that Mr. Williams âwas raised in poverty-stricken circumstances for most of his life an issue that has disproportionately affected Black and racialized people for many yearsâ (page 12 of the EPSR).
[9] Mr. Williams experienced some depression as a child as he was bullied because of his weight and his dreadlocks. He experienced racism at school. His mother disclosed that âhe wanted to dieâ.
[10] Mr. Williams described the neighbourhoods where he grew up in as âghetto areasâ comprised of rundown, low-income buildings in need of renovations. As a child, Mr. Williams witnessed a shooting as well as a number of fights. This led his mother to want to have him and his sister to remain inside. Later on, Mr. Williams had two friends who were shot and thereby paralyzed. One later died when he was shot again.
[11] It is also clear from the materials filed that Mr. Williams has since cut ties with his past negative peer influences. Two of Mr. Williams friends from highschool have stepped forward and it is clear that they are committed to helping him rehabilitate himself. One of them is a psychotherapist and the other is a financial analyst. Both of them have deep roots in the community.
[12] Mr. Williamsâ family experienced a number of evictions and, when they purchased a home, they ultimately experienced foreclosure.
[13] The family experienced food insecurity and at times had only sardines or mac & cheese for dinner for several months at a time.
[14] Mr. Williams turned to sports and played baseball, football and learned how to swim. His football skills gave him an opportunity to attend a football prep school in grade 12 in the Niagara region. His time there did not work out. He was accused of stealing from another student, an allegation he denied, and which was never proved. He left the school but did obtain his high school diploma shortly thereafter.
[15] Mr. Williams has a sister. She is a single mother to two children. Mr. Williams provides his sister with financial assistance to help her, and he plays a special role as a father figure to his sisterâs children.
[16] Notwithstanding these challenges, Mr. Williams has tried to help his community both before and after the events giving rise to these charges. A close friend from school (one of the two people mentioned above), who Mr. Williams had played football with, established, and operates Rexdale Youth Mentorship, non-profit organization that provides social and professional resources for equity seeking youth in the Rexdale community. Mr. Williams is one of the few people who signed on to volunteer. He started the volunteer work in 2019 and has done more than 525 hours since that time both before and after the charges. In particular, his volunteer hours include his work as a mentor to Black and racialized youth. He has received very positive accolades for his volunteer work.
[17] The poverty that Mr. Williams grew up with has remained constant in his life into early adult hood and âbecame more acute once he learned that he was about to become a first-time fatherâ. The EPSR author states that Mr. Williamsâ âfear of being unable to provide triggered his decision to engage in criminal activity as a short-term remedy for what he considered to be an immediate needâ. Mr. Williams said to the EPSR author that his decision to possess fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking was a one-time event meant to meet a pending financial need. He was not financially prepared to be a father and wanted to jumpstart his savings in preparation for the child arriving. His discussion with the mother to be included a discussion around the expenses they could expect to be associated with the baby. This discussion left him feeling concerned about his ability to provide. He had observed some friends who had made money in the drug trade, and he saw it as an opportunity for himself on a one-time only basis to solve his problems.
[18] Mr. Williams has expressed remorse for his crime including the shame it has brought on his family. According to his mother, he knows that his actions were wrong, and he has been remorseful for them including for the damage and effects his actions could have had on other people.
[19] Mr. Williams has been employed as a âlumperâ since 2018, a labour job which involves loading containers onto trucks and moving them about a warehouse. That was the job he held at the time of the offence in 2020 and which he still holds today. However, Mr. Williams has since taken significant strides to advance his employment prospects. Since the offence, he obtained a loan with his motherâs assistance for something in the order of $10,000. This was to pay for tuition at a private career college where he undertook and completed a program in welding. He is now qualified to work as a welder. He intends to obtain work in the welding field, but he has not yet taken steps to do that as he wishes to have this sentencing behind him before moving forward with that step.
[20] Mr. Williams is no longer in a relationship with the mother of his child. However, she was interviewed for the EPSR, and she was entirely supportive of him. She says they are co-parenting together, and that Mr. Williams is âawesomeâ with the child and has a close relationship with him.
The General Principles of Sentencing
[21] The fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in section 718.1 of the Code and provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[22] Justice Paciocco in R v Casselman 2014 ONCJ 198 at para. 3 summarized the sentencing process as follows:
The fundamental principle of sentencing requires that to be fit any sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s.718.1). This is achieved by examining the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that pertain both to the offence and the offender, bearing in mind established principles of sentencing, including those enumerated in the Criminal Code of Canada (s.718.2). The sentencing objectives suggested by this inquiry, selected from the sentencing goals listed in section 718, are then identified. Based on the selected objectives and always mindful of the principle of restraint contained in sections 718.2 (c) â (e) of the Criminal Code of Canada the trial judge then selects a fit sentence that will best achieve those objectives and is similar to sentences imposed in similar cases.
[23] Section 718 of the Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community
Sentencing in Fentanyl Cases
[24] Possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl is an extremely serious crime. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that trafficking in significant amounts of fentanyl, even by a first-time offender, should result in significant penitentiary sentences: see R. v. Loor 2017 ONCA 696 at para. 50.
[25] R. v. Parranto 2021 SCC 16, the majority of the Supreme Court noted at para 68 that the range of sentence for trafficking in significant amounts of fentanyl is 8 to 15 years.
[26] The significant sentences imposed in fentanyl trafficking cases follows from the fact that fentanyl is such a deadly drug. Justice Moldaver, in a concurring opinion in R. v. Parranto 2021 SCC 16, said as follows at para 96:
More broadly, Federal statistics on opioid-related deaths show that, between January 2016 and March 2021, approximately 23,000 Canadians lost their lives due to accidental apparent opioid-related deaths, with fentanyl involved in 71% of these deaths (Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, Opioid stimulus-related harm in Canada (September 2021) (online). The epidemic also shows no sign of abating, with over 6000 accidental deaths occurring in 2020 alone, 82% of which involve fentanyl (Government Canada, Federal actions on opioids to date (June 2021) (online). These figures throw into stark relief the dark and inescapable reality that âevery day in our communities, fentanyl abuse claims the lives of Canadiansâ (R. v. Loor 2017 ONCA 696, at para 33)â
[27] In R v. Lynch 2022 ONCA 109, the defendant pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine (965 grams), MDMA (149.28 grams) and fentanyl (47.37 grams). On a plea of guilt, the trial judge had sentenced the defendant to four years in prison. The Court of Appeal increased the sentence to six years.
[28] Justice Davies of the Ontario Superior Court has observed that possession for the purpose of trafficking in even small amounts of fentanyl can attract very long sentences in the range of 5 to 7 years: see R. v. Oksem 2019 ONSC 6283 at para 19. She observed that fentanyl had created a public health crisis in Canada resulting in many accidental deaths. She noted that even 2 mg of fentanyl can be fatal (see para 9 of Oksem). In that case, Justice Davies sentenced the defendant to an 18-month jail term for possession for the purpose of trafficking in 7.6 grams of cocaine and 5.62 grams of fentanyl mixed with caffeine. The defendant was an addict who had committed the possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl while he was on bail for the possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine. I do note that at the time of sentencing in this case, a conditional sentence was not available.
[29] In R. v. Tonkin 2023 ONSC 2139 Justice Nakatsuru sentenced a 21-year-old first offender to 29 months institutional custody on a possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl offence (27.15 grams) and 15 months concurrent on possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine offence (55.62 grams). Justice Nakatsuru rejected the imposition of a conditional sentence in that case.
[30] On the other hand, in exceptional cases, some defendants have received conditional sentences for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl.
[31] In R. v. Grant 2021 ONCJ 507 Justice Calsavara, following a trial, found the defendant guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (9.5 grams); possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (26 grams); possession for the purpose of trafficking in powder cocaine (13.2 grams) and possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine (4 grams). The accused person was 18 years old with no record. He was characterized as a low-end street-level trafficker. He had been bullied as a child âbecause of his black skinâ. He was not an addict trafficker. He appeared to have been involved in the drug trade for only a few days. He had had a challenging upbringing and had done well on bail including finishing high school, being accepted to college, and holding down two jobs. Justice Calsavara called it an exceptional case and imposed a two-year less a day conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.
[32] In R. v. Gordon 2023 ONCJ 157 the accused pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (12.07 grams); cocaine (7.02 grams) and 30 pills of hydromorphone. The accused was an addict trafficker with a minor record. He had âtumbled down into a life of homelessness and opioid addictionâ. Since his arrest he had secured housing and had committed to treatment at CAMH. He had also been working. Justice Silverstein imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day with 15 months of the conditional sentence being on house arrest followed by 18 months probation.
[33] In R. v. Nacinovich 2020 ONSC 7604 the defendant changed his plea after the trial had started. He pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (8.6 g). He was a 41-year-old addict trafficker with a lengthy record. He had made significant strides since his arrest. In particular, he had not used drugs in 18 months (as verified by urine checks) and was under the care of a physician who was treating him for his addiction and who placed him in the top 5% of the doctorâs patients for stability. The Court ordered a conditional sentence of two years less a day less presentence custody which had included 211 real days in jail.
[34] In R. v. Han 2022 ONCJ 343, Justice De Filippis sentenced a 24-year-old first offender who had pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (15.6 grams). The defendant had been addicted to fentanyl but since her arrest she had attended 24 drug rehabilitation sessions and had obtained employment. He sentenced her to a conditional sentence of two years less a day and make the conditional sentence subject to electronic supervision.
[35] In R. v. Russell 2023 ONCJ 133 Justice Silverstein was called upon to sentence an accused who had pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (7.73 g) and possession of proceeds of crime. The defendant was also in possession of 33 grams of cocaine and $5000 in cash. I note that the defendant had a previous conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance and weapons trafficking for which he had received a penitentiary sentence. The judge in the case, Justice Silverstein, was clearly impressed by the work the defendant had done since his arrest including 565 hours of volunteer work at the Salvation Army which has led to an offer of full-time employment there which he had accepted. The Court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
[36] Let me summarize my view of the law on sentencing in fentanyl trafficking cases. Deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objectives in these cases. In general, possession for the purpose of trafficking in even smaller amounts of fentanyl can lead to a significant institutional jail sentence. However, in exceptional cases where the mitigating factors are particularly compelling, a conditional sentence may be appropriate. I note that most of the cases in which conditional sentences have been imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, the accused is often an addict trafficker who, since their arrest, has made significant strides to address their addiction (see Gordon, Nacinovich and Han for example). Having said that, there have been other cases where conditional sentences have been imposed where the defendants were not addict traffickers but were motivated by money. In those cases, the defendants have had to show that they had turned her life around since the time of their arrest (see Grant and Russell).
The Role of Anti-Black Racism in Sentencing
[37] In R. v. Morris 2021 ONCA 680, a five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the question of the role of anti-Black racism in sentencing. The court stated at para 1 that:
âovert and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continues 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.
[38] The Court further observed that the task of a trial judge in sentencing is ânot primarily aimed at holding the criminal justice system accountable for systemic failuresâ (para 56). The Court also stated that anti-Black racism cannot diminish the seriousness of an offence, but it can impact on the specific offender and âcan be an important consideration when determining the appropriate sentenceâ (para 87).
[39] The effect of anti-Black racism on an offender is not only admissible evidence on a sentencing hearing but is âessential to the obtaining of an accurate picture of the offender as a person and a part of societyâ (para 91).
[40] The Court of Appeal in Morris rejected that there must be a âdirect causal link between the offence and the negative effects of anti-Black racism on the offender before anti-Black racism can be seen as mitigating personal responsibilityâ. Nevertheless, there must be some connection. The Court of Appeal explained as follows at para 97:
There must, however, be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue. Racism may have impacted on the offender in a way that bears on the offenderâs moral culpability for the crime or it may be relevant in some other way to a determination of the appropriate sentence. Absent some connection, mitigation of sentence based simply on the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community becomes a discount based on the offenderâs colour. Everyone agrees there can be no such discount
[41] The Court of Appeal in Morris summarized that social context evidence âwhich helps explains how the offender came to commit the offenceâ is relevant and admissible on sentencing and helps inform the selection of an appropriate sanction or sanctions. The Court stated that âacknowledging the reality of anti-Black racism⊠enhances the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the communityâ (see para 106).
[42] Further, the Court of Appeal in Morris explained at para 79 that âthe social context evidence canâŠ.give less weight to the specific deterrence of the offender and greater weight to the rehabilitation of the offender through a sentence that addresses the societal disadvantages caused to the offender by factors such as systemic racism.â
[43] While the Court of Appeal imposed a two-years less a day institutional custody sentence for the accused in the Morris case, the Court did note that conditional sentences, properly used, can ameliorate the long-standing problem of the over incarceration of young black men (see paras 127-28 and 180). In the case of R. v. Desmond Robinson 2022 ONCA 369, the defendant was found guilty of possession of an unloaded sawed-off shotgun. Ammunition was nearby. The sentencing judge imposed an 18-month custodial jail sentence. The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge on sentencing and imposed a two-year conditional sentence. The Court noted that the defendant had no record and stated at para 16 that âcircumstances beyond his control, some of which no doubt reflects systemic racism, diminish his moral culpabilityâ. Further, the Court was impressed with what he had achieved since the time of his arrest. He had gone back to school and graduated from a culinary program at the Toronto District School Board and had obtained employment as a chef. He was living with his fiancĂ©e and caring for his child.
Discussion and Analysis: the Appropriate Sentence in this case
[44] I turn to the question of the appropriate sentence in this case.
[45] I consider first the aggravating factors in this case. The most aggravating factor is the nature and quantity of the drug that Mr. Williams chose to possess for the purpose of trafficking. 14.27 grams of fentanyl is not an insignificant amount. As I have already explained above, fentanyl is a deadly drug which has claimed thousands of Canadiansâ lives. The 3.1 grams of cocaine which was also in his possession is aggravating. I attach little significance to the possession of the 180 grams of cannabis. Cannabis is now a legal drug in Canada. Clearly Mr. Williams was possessing it for the purpose of trafficking outside of the proper channels but in my view, it should not be given significant weight in the sentencing analysis.
[46] There are numerous mitigating factors here. First, Mr. Williams has no criminal record, and he has pled guilty and thereby saved considerable Court resources. Second, he is what I would describe as a relatively youthful first offender: see R. v. Arbuthnot 2009 MBCA 106 which held that relatively youthful means a person aged 25 years or younger. See also R. v. Beauchamp 2015 ONCA 260 where the Court of Appeal treated a 24-year-old as a youthful offender. Mr. Williams was 25 years old at the time of this offence. Mr. Williamsâ relatively youthful status engages the principle of restraint. Third, while this plea has taken some time to take place, it was not for lack of effort on the part of Mr. Williams. The charges were laid in September 2020. The first pretrial with me took place in March 2021 and multiple pre-trials took place thereafter. Defence counsel had to navigate, among other things, the question of how to obtain an EPSR paid for by legal aid when the retainer is private. EPSRs are invaluable but they are costly and take a considerable time to prepare. The point I am making is that Mr. Williams, through his counsel, has been taking steps to attempt to resolve this case since early in 2021. No trial date was ever set. Fourth, while I am not in a position to assess the strength or weakness of it, Mr. Williams did give up a potential section 8 Charter argument associated with the search of the vehicle.
[47] Fifth, based on my consideration of the EPSR and the evidence as a whole, I have no doubt that there is a significant connection between the anti-Black racism which Mr. Williams has lived with all of his life and the commission of this offence. Mr. Williams found himself in September 2020 with low-end employment and little money as many people who have lived with anti-Black racism have found themselves in. Further, his hours had been cut back due to the pandemic and he had a pregnant girlfriend where the pregnancy was unplanned. He felt pressure to provide financially for his unborn child as well as for his sisterâs children. He had limited options before him to earn money to meet his financial obligations to his unborn child and his ongoing commitments to his sisterâs children.
[48] Of course, many people find themselves in difficult financial circumstances and suffering stress at many times during their lives. Most people continue to live law-abiding lives. Mr. Williams made a terrible error in judgement when he chose to possess fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, but I have no doubt that that error in judgement arose from the social context in which Mr. Williams had lived his entire life. As Justice Nakatsuru observed at para 39 in Tonkin, sometimes the challenging lives that people live âaffect the choices offenders are able to makeâ.
[49] The primary sentencing objectives here are deterrence and denunciation but rehabilitation remains important. In my view, the social context evidence in this case provides a basis upon which added weight can be given to the objective of rehabilitation and less weight to the objective of specific deterrence. Further, I believe that based on everything Iâve seen in this case that Mr. Williams doesnât really need significant specific deterrence. He knows what a terrible decision he made, and he is unlikely to find himself back before the criminal courts in the future.
[50] There is a further significant mitigating factor here and that is that since his arrest Mr. Williams has taken significant steps to ensure that what happened here never happens again. With his motherâs assistance he borrowed $10,000 and went back to school to study welding. He is now qualified to work as a welder and intends to do so. This took significant drive and determination to achieve. I also observe that Mr. Williams has strong family supports and this will help with his rehabilitation.
[51] While I consider that the offence here was extremely serious, I also understand and appreciate that the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking is less serious than the offence of actual trafficking: see R. v. King 2013 ONCA 417 at para 54. I would add that while I consider that Mr. Williamsâ statements to the EPSR author that this was his first foray into the drug world to be self serving, the Crown does acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Williams had ever committed a drug crime (or any crime) before. Therefore, if it is fair to say that on the record before me that this was a one-time event.
[52] There is no doubt that Mr. Williams must have a period of custody for the crime he committed. The question is whether that custody can be served in the community or must it be served in an institutional setting.
[53] Pursuant to section 742.1 of the Code, there are five requirements which must be met before a conditional sentence can be imposed: (i) the offence must not be a specifically excluded offence; (ii) there must be no minimum term of imprisonment; (iii) the Court must impose a sentence of imprisonment that is less than two years; (iv) the safety of the community must not be endangered by the offender serving his sentence in the community; and (v) the conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code.
[54] In this case, the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl is not specifically excluded as ineligible for a conditional sentence and there is no minimum term of imprisonment. Based on my review of the case law above and my consideration of all the circumstances in this case, it is clear to me that a sentence of custody of two years less a day would be appropriate and consistent with sentences imposed in other similar cases where the mitigating factors are strong. Given Mr. Williams lack of a criminal record and the fact that he has had no difficulty since the charges were laid, I am satisfied that he can serve his sentence in the community without endangering the community in any way.
[55] The real question in this case is whether a conditional sentence of two years less a day would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
[56] In my view, considering all the circumstances of this case, to take a young man such as Mr. Williams and place him in a federal penitentiary for three years as the Crown has requested is more likely to take him off the positive path that he is on and put his rehabilitation at significant risk. As the Supreme Court has observed, prison is sometimes described as a âfinishing schoolâ for criminals: see R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 at para 16.
[57] It is important to note that a conditional sentence can meet the objectives of deterrence and denunciation while also promoting rehabilitation: see R. v. Fabbro 2021 ONCA 494 at para 27; see also Proulx, supra.
[58] The Crown argues that Mr. Williams should not receive the benefit of a conditional sentence. They distinguish this case with other cases in which conditional sentences have been imposed for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl. In particular, the Crown argues that typically a defendant who receives the benefit of a conditional sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl will be an addict trafficker who has taken steps to turn their life around (such as the accused in the Gordon, Nacinovich, and Han cases). I disagree with this argument for two reasons. First, as I have already noted above, there have been cases where persons who were not addicts received conditional sentences for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl (see Grant and Russell for example). Second, whether an accused person commits the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl because they are an addict trafficker or because of their very limited economic means due to a life of racial discrimination should not matter. It seems to me that what is more important is to look at, among other things, what the person has done since the time of the arrest. It is commendable when addict traffickers like Mr. Gordon take steps to turn their life around after they are charged. Similarly, it is commendable that someone like Mr. Williams has taken steps to turn his life around by borrowing money to go back to school and taking training to become a welder.
[59] I have concluded that a conditional sentence plus probation is an appropriate sentence in this case. In particular, there will be a conditional sentence of two years less a day plus 2 years probation. Either all or a significant part of the conditional sentence will be on house arrest and subject to electronic monitoring (i.e., an ankle bracelet with electronic monitoring). GPS monitoring 24 hours a day is an excellent tool which sends a message of deterrence, denunciation and accountability. I indicated at the time of the sentencing submissions that if I were to order a conditional sentence, that I would give the parties the opportunity to make brief submissions on the particulars of that conditional sentence including the length of the period of house arrest. This conditional sentence of two years less a day is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and balances and promotes the objectives of deterrence and denunciation while at the same time recognizing the importance of the objective of rehabilitation for Mr. Williams. During the house arrest period he will be able to leave home for going directly to and from work in accordance with hours approved of in writing in advance by his conditional sentence supervisor. This sentence will permit him to continue on a positive path and will thereby promote the protection of society: see R. v. Beharry 2022 ONSC 4370 at para 43. Probation of 2 years will follow the conditional sentence and will include 100 hours of community service and counselling as directed. There will be a DNA order and a section 109 order for 10 years.
[60] The other terms of the conditional sentence and the probation will be determined after these reasons for sentence have been provided.
Released: June 9, 2023 Signed: Justice Paul F. Monahan
