Her Majesty The Queen v. Seymour Young, 2022 ONSC 1143

Court File No.: CR-21-40000412-0000 Court File No.: CR-21-40000530-0000 Date: 2022-02-22

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

• and -

SEYMOUR YOUNG

Before: Forestell J.

Counsel: B. Stagg and B. Burgess, for the Crown C. Bottomley, for Mr. Young

Heard: October 4, 2021 and January 12, 2022

Reasons for Sentence

Overview

[1] Seymour Young entered a guilty plea before me on October 4, 2021 to a charge of manslaughter while using a firearm.

Circumstances of the Offence

[2] The circumstances underlying the offence are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts filed on the guilty plea.

[3] On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 15-year-old Jeremiah Ranger, and his friend Igushi Blake arranged a drug transaction with Seymour Young using anonymous Instagram accounts. They did not know Mr. Young and he did not know them. They arranged to meet Mr. Young in a townhouse complex under the pretence that they would purchase a quantity of marijuana from Mr. Young. Mr. Ranger’s intention in setting the meeting, however, was to rob Mr. Young.

[4] Seymour Young attended at the location in an SUV driven by his brother Tyler Young. Seymour Young was in the front passenger seat. Seymour Young’s girlfriend, Hannah Gaudet was in the rear seat.

[5] As the SUV pulled up and stopped, Mr. Ranger quickly approached the vehicle followed a few seconds later by Mr. Blake. Mr. Young had rolled down the front passenger window of the vehicle in anticipation of conducting the transaction through the window. Instead, Mr. Ranger entered the right rear passenger side of the vehicle followed by Mr. Blake. Once inside, Mr. Ranger produced what turned out to be an imitation firearm and made clear his intention to rob the occupants of the vehicle. In response to Mr. Ranger’s brandishing what appeared to be a firearm, Mr. Young pulled his own firearm and fired once. Mr. Young aimed low and as Mr. Ranger turned to flee the vehicle he was hit in the buttocks.

[6] As he fled the vehicle from the rear passenger door, Mr. Ranger stumbled and dropped the imitation firearm. Mr. Ranger got back to his feet and ran a few more meters before collapsing behind the complex’s garbage bin a short distance away. Mr. Ranger had suffered a penetrating gunshot wound to the left buttock that had severed an artery. He was pronounced dead at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Blake, after initially running away from the scene, returned, retrieved the imitation firearm, and hid it about 500 meters away.

[7] Police identified Seymour and Tyler Young and Hannah Gaudet as the occupants of the SUV at the time of the shooting. On May 2, 2020, Tyler Young was arrested and charged. Hannah Gaudet and Seymour Young were arrested and charged on May 4, 2020 when they surrendered to the police.

[8] The parties agree that while there was no intention to kill, Mr. Young’s conduct in shooting Mr. Ranger exceeded the scope of s. 34 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 and thus amounts to manslaughter.

Victim Impact

[9] Victim impact statements were filed in this case. The statements describe the profound loss suffered by the family of Jeremiah Ranger and the impact on the community.

[10] Jeremiah’s mother described the depression, anxiety, fear and exhaustion that she continues to experience. She had a special and close bond with Jeremiah. She also described the ongoing and significant impact of this offence on Jeremiah’s siblings. In particular, Jeremiah’s younger brother, Jacob has been traumatized by Jeremiah’s violent death.

[11] Jeremiah’s family members also described the life of Jeremiah. While Jeremiah faced challenges and obstacles, he was loved and supported and he, in turn, loved and supported those close to him.

[12] As a result of this offence, Jeremiah’s family and friends have lost the companionship of their son, brother, and friend. Jeremiah lost his life and his future.

[13] I have considered the impact of the offence as disclosed by the Victim Impact Statements in determining the appropriate sentence, while recognizing that no sentence that I can impose will ever compensate the family and friends of Jeremiah for their loss or ease the pain that they continue to suffer. The sentence imposed is not a reflection of the value of Jeremiah’s life because no sentence could adequately convey the incalculable worth of the life and future of this child.

Background and Character of the Offender

Background

[14] On the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Young filed letters of support for Mr. Young and the affidavit of Mr. Young, setting out his background.

[15] Mr. Young is now 25 years old. He has no criminal record.

[16] Mr. Young was born in Brampton and lived in Brampton with his parents until he was eight years old. Mr. Young’s father worked as a general labourer in a factory and his mother stayed home with Mr. Young and his brother. His childhood was marked by violence. His father was physically abusive to Mr. Young and his brother. The Children’s Aid Society was involved with the family after teachers reported the injuries inflicted on Mr. Young and his brother.

[17] Mr. Young’s father moved out when Mr. Young was eight years old. His mother then became involved with another man. They were together until Mr. Young was 15 years old. After they broke up, Mr. Young’s mother had nowhere to go and moved in with her mother (Mr. Young’s grandmother). Mr. Young and his brother were not welcome in the home and Mr. Young moved in with his father. His father kicked him out of the house one year later when he was 16 years old and in grade 9.

[18] Mr. Young quit school and began work with his uncle as a roofer. His uncle gave him money for first and last month’s rent for an apartment where he lived until he was 21 years old. Mr. Young met his partner, Hannah when he was 21 years old and moved in with her. They both lost their jobs when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020. Mr. Young began selling marihuana to pay the rent. He reported that he had been selling marihuana for about two weeks before this offence and had bought a gun one week before the offence.

[19] Mr. Young’s mother and uncle remain supportive of Mr. Young.

[20] Mr. Young reported that he has identified as Indigenous since childhood. He is also a Black man. His father is originally from Jamaica and his mother from Newfoundland. A Gladue report was requested in this case. Mr. Young’s mother indicated to the person who responded to the request for a Gladue Report that her grandmother was Mi’kmaq from Nova Scotia. Neither Mr. Young nor his mother had any involvement with the Indigenous community. The author of the response was unable to confirm that Mr. Young or his mother was an Aboriginal person.

Positions of the Parties

[21] The Crown submits that a sentence of eight years imprisonment is appropriate before consideration for COVID and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

[22] Counsel for Mr. Young submits that a five-year sentence would be appropriate before consideration for COVID and the harsh conditions of presentence custody.

Sentencing Principles and Analysis

[23] In determining an appropriate sentence there are principles and objectives established by the Criminal Code and the caselaw that I must consider.

[24] Section 718.2(a) of the Code requires the court to consider any relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[25] Aggravating factors in this case include the fact that Mr. Young possessed and carried a loaded firearm in a car, in a public place. He was involved in the drug trade and took the gun to a drug deal. The victim in this case was a child and that is a further aggravating factor.

[26] There are also mitigating factors.

[27] Mr. Young pleaded guilty at a very early opportunity. The case against him was not overwhelming. There were arguable defences. If the case had gone to trial with three accused [^1] and issues such as self-defence, the trial would have consumed considerable court resources at a time when the courts are facing unprecedented backlogs because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[28] I accept that Mr. Young’s guilty plea shows genuine remorse and is an acknowledgment of responsibility for the killing of Jeremiah Ranger.

[29] The fundamental principle of sentencing set out in s. 718.1 of the Code is that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[30] There is no question that the offence of manslaughter — the taking of a life by an unlawful act — is serious. The mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter while using a firearm is four years’ imprisonment.

[31] Mr. Young’s difficult upbringing marked by poverty, violence and deprivation is also a relevant consideration on sentencing. Mr. Young had no opportunity to complete his education and had to support himself from a young age. At the time of the offence he was engaged in criminal activity to support himself, having lost his employment. His childhood poverty and deprivation do not justify the choice he made to carry a gun to a drug deal, but that background provides some context for the choice that he made and impacts on my assessment of his moral blameworthiness.

[32] The purpose of sentencing as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to “contribute …to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; …and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community”.

[33] Although all sentencing objectives are relevant, deterrence and denunciation are generally the dominant sentencing objectives in sentencing for manslaughter.

[34] While rehabilitation is not the predominant sentencing objective for the offence of manslaughter, in the case of a first offender like Mr. Young, it is a relevant consideration. It is a recognized principle of sentencing that where a penitentiary sentence must be imposed on a youthful first offender, the sentence should be as short as possible. [^2] The Court of Appeal has held that sentences at the lower end of the range of appropriate sentence may be appropriate for youthful first offenders with good prospects for rehabilitation. [^3]

[35] I am satisfied that Mr. Young has good prospects of rehabilitation because of his support from his family, his remorse and his consistent employment history.

[36] Courts are also obliged to consider other cases and to impose similar sentences for similar offences and offenders. [^4] The circumstances of offenders and offences vary widely. This is particularly true in sentencing for manslaughter. Nevertheless, several of the cases provided by counsel are instructive in determining the appropriate sentence in this case.

In R. v. Sahal, 2016 ONSC 6864 [^5] Justice Dambrot imposed a sentence of six years on a young first offender with strong family support and a history of employment. Mr. Sahal deliberately discharged a firearm in the direction of the victim with the intent to intimidate the victim but not to kill him. A dispute over a drug debt was found to be the cause of the confrontation between the offender and the victim. Justice Dambrot noted the seriousness of the offence, the high moral blameworthiness of the offender and the need to strongly denounce gun violence.

In R. v. Mulligan-Brum, 2013 BCCA 231 [^6] the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of seven years in the case of an offender who was 20 at the time of the offence and 22 at the time of sentencing. Mr. Mulligan-Brum fired two shots from a handgun at a group of youths who were running away after vandalizing his car. One of the shots killed the victim. Mr. Mulligan-Brum had a criminal record and was on probation at the time of the killing. The sentencing judge observed that the offence did not occur ‘in an instant’ but the offender took the time to pick up his gun, leave his residence and pursue the group before yelling at them and firing the shots.

In R. v. Pintar [^7], a case that predates the four year mandatory minimum for manslaughter with a firearm, the 47 year old first offender was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for shooting and killing two men who came to his home and threatened him and his daughter.

In R. v. Ferguson, 2006 ABCA 261 [^8] the offender was a police officer who fired two shots at a man in custody. It was found that the man had attempted to grab Mr. Ferguson’s firearm before Mr. Ferguson regained control of the gun and shot the victim in the abdomen and then in the head. The sentencing judge found that Mr. Ferguson no longer believed that he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm when he fired the second shot. Aggravating factors with respect to the offence included that Mr. Ferguson was in a position of trust and the victim was vulnerable because he was unarmed and inebriated. Mitigating factors were that Mr. Ferguson’s actions were not planned and he had little time to consider what to do. His instincts and training played a role. The victim initiated the altercation by grabbing for the gun. Mr. Ferguson was a first offender with strong family and community support. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence. The Court of Appeal substituted a four-year sentence — the minimum sentence.

[37] Sentencing is a highly individualized process. It will be rare for a sentencing court to have the benefit of a prior identical case and there is no identical case for me to follow. This case is most similar to the case of Sahal. In this case, as in Sahal, the altercation occurred in the context of a drug transaction. Unlike Sahal, the shooting in this case occurred in circumstances where Mr. Young responded to aggression by the deceased. It was not a deliberate act of intimidation. Ferguson offers some guidance in situating the offence closer to the lower end of the range where the offence occurs in response to aggression. Obviously, however, Ferguson is distinguishable from the case before me because Mr. Ferguson was carrying a firearm lawfully in the course of his employment and Mr. Young was carrying an illegal handgun in the course of a criminal enterprise.

[38] A further consideration on sentence is the pre-sentence custody served by Mr. Young and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pre-sentence custody and on the sentence that remains to be served.

[39] Mr. Young has been in custody since his arrest in May of 2020. At the time of sentencing on February 22, 2022, Mr. Young will have spent 659 days in pre-sentence custody. The COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing throughout his incarceration. Conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) have been the subject of critical commentary for years before the pandemic. Lockdowns due to staffing shortages have been an ongoing problem at the TSDC. The pandemic has exacerbated those conditions. Mr. Young has spent at least one-third of his time in custody in lockdown (146 days as of September 19, 2021). While on lockdown, inmates have little or no access to telephones and showers. They are locked in their cells with their cellmate and a shared open toilet. Mr. Young’s affidavit attests to the impact of the conditions of his incarceration.

[40] Counsel for Mr. Young and Crown counsel have agreed that the harsh conditions of presentence custody and COVID should mitigate the sentence. They jointly propose a reduction of seven months from the otherwise appropriate sentence. I accept the joint recommendation. Mr. Young has endured exceptionally harsh conditions while in custody and he will serve his sentence during the ongoing pandemic. He will, by virtue of his placement in a congregate living setting, continue to be at an increased risk of contracting COVID. It is likely that lockdowns and limitations on programming will continue. This makes the period of incarceration more onerous. [^9] A reduction of seven months in the sentence, as proposed by counsel, adequately recognizes the impact of these conditions.

[41] The sentence that I would have imposed absent the mitigation due to harsh conditions and COVID is a sentence of 5 years and seven months. Balancing all of relevant sentencing objectives and principles, including the collateral consequences of COVID and the harsh conditions of presentence incarceration, I have concluded that a sentence of five years is appropriate. A sentence of five years’ imprisonment, in my view, meets the objectives of deterrence and denunciation without removing the opportunity for Mr. Young to rehabilitate himself. It is similar to sentences imposed on first offenders for manslaughter with a firearm in similar circumstances.

Conclusion

[42] Therefore, the sentence that I impose is five years’ imprisonment. Mr Young has spent 659 actual days in presentence custody. With credit at 1.5:1 of 989 days, this leaves 838 days left to serve or approximately 27 months.

[43] There will be a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Young from possession of any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

[44] Manslaughter is a "primary designated offence" in s. 487.04, the section of the Criminal Code dealing with forensic DNA analysis and the securing of DNA samples. As such, s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code makes such an order mandatory. Therefore, I order that Mr. Young provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

Forestell J.

Released: February 22, 2022

Footnotes

[^1]: Mr. Young’s brother and girlfriend were also charged in relation to the shooting. [^2]: R. v. Vandale, [1974], O.J. No. 1047 (C.A.) [^3]: R. v. Green, [1982] O.J. No. 2504; R. v. Hayman, [1999] O.J. No. 1308; R. v. Priest, [1996] O.J. No. 3369 [^4]: Section 718.2 (b) Criminal Code; R. v. Devaney, [2006] O.J. No. 3996 (C.A.) [^5]: 2016 ONSC 6864 [^6]: 2013 BCCA 231 [^7]: [1994] O.J. No. 1435 [^8]: 2006 ABCA 261 [^9]: R. v. Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365; R. v. Studd, 2020 ONSC 2810; R. v. Steckley, 2020 ONSC 3410