Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-21-30000518 Date: 20230428 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King And: Kalu Solomon

Counsel: Eadit Rokach, for the Crown Adele Monaco, for Kalu Solomon

Heard: April 12 and 18, 2023

Before: R.F. Goldstein J.

1. Overview

[1] Kalu Solomon pleaded guilty to offences involving four incidents. One incident was a gunpoint kidnapping on March 16, 2018. The other three were incidents that occurred while Mr. Solomon was in custody. On September 25, 2019 Mr. Solomon attempted to disarm a correctional officer of pepper spray at Toronto East Detention Centre; on November 17, 2020 Mr. Solomon assaulted a correctional officer and made threats against other correctional officers, also at Toronto East Detention Centre; and on October 15, 2020 Mr. Solomon committed an aggravated assault using a shank on a fellow inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Centre. Mr. Solomon now comes before the court for sentencing.

2. The Facts

(a) The Kidnapping

[2] On May 16, 2018 Mr. Solomon and two criminal associates were at 330 Alton Circle in Toronto at 1 am. They were driving a Dodge Charger. The Charger had a licence plate that had been stolen from another vehicle between March 15 and 16, 2018. Mr. Solomon’s fingerprints were later found on the licence plates.

[3] She Xu was at 330 Alton Circle at 1 am. He was with two friends. The three were getting into Mr. Xu’s vehicle. Mr. Xu was getting into the front seat when three men approached the car with guns drawn. Mr. Solomon approached one of the passengers while one of the other kidnappers approached Mr. Xu, told him to get out, and said “this is real, we know you’ve been to Vegas”. The three kidnappers struck Mr. Xu and bound his hands and feet. They put him in the trunk of the Dodge Charger. Somehow, Mr. Xu managed to text a message to his girlfriend. She alerted the police. Police officers observed the Dodge Charger and gave chase. They were forced to abandon the pursuit. Mr. Solomon and his co-kidnappers were not only dangerous and violent criminals, they were also inept. Not only did they permit Mr. Xu to send out an SOS, but they also ran out of gas. The kidnappers abandoned the Charger by the side of the road, where the police later found it. Mr. Xu was in the trunk, zip-tied and duct taped.

[4] Mr. Solomon fled to the United States. He was in Minnesota in June 2018 when he came to the attention of American authorities. He was found in possession of someone else’s Hawaiian identification. He was turned over to Canadian authorities in August 2019 and has been in custody ever since.

[5] Mr. Solomon has pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of possession of stolen property under $5000.00 in relation to this kidnapping.

(b) The Attempted Disarming Of A Correctional Officer

[6] On September 25, 2019, Mr. Solomon was an inmate at Toronto East Detention Centre. He was in his cell. The hatch was open and Mr. Solomon’s arm was out. A correctional officer asked him to put his arm back in. Mr. Solomon refused. The correctional officer took control of his arm. Mr. Solomon reached out to take the officer’s pepper spray. The incident was witnessed by another correctional officer. Mr. Solomon has pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to disarm a peace officer.

(c) The Aggravated Assault At Maplehurst

[7] On October 15, 2020, Mr. Solomon was an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton, Ontario. He and another inmate, Raneil Fagan, became involved in a fight in the exercise yard. Mr. Solomon pulled out a shank – a home-made edged weapon. The shank was made of a razor blade attached to a comb. Mr. Solomon slashed Mr. Fagan across the face and neck. Mr. Fagan required 40 stitches. Mr. Solomon has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace in relation to this incident.

(d) The Assault And Threats Against Correctional Officers

[8] On November 27, 2020 Mr. Solomon was back at the Toronto East Detention Centre. Correctional Officer Renouf was approached by Mr. Solomon who complained that the COs were giving him a hard time. CO Renouf told Mr. Solomon that he had to show respect, whereupon Mr. Solomon spit on him. He then challenged another correctional officer, CO Pannavaria, to a fight. Other officers arrived and took control of Mr. Solomon, who said he would kill them all. Mr. Solomon has pleaded guilty to one count of assault and one count of uttering threats in relation to this incident.

(e) Circumstances Of Mr. Solomon

[9] Mr. Solomon was born in 1999 in Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia. When he was very young his mother moved with him and his brothers to a refugee camp in Kenya. His father and grandmother joined them a year later. Things were difficult in the refugee camp. The family was able to get by through a combination of small scale farming and running a small business shining shoes. Mr. Solomon has very fond memories of time spent with his father working in the shoeshine business. According to Mr. Solomon, at a certain point the UN stopped running the camp and the Kenyan Army took over. Conditions deteriorated. Food rations were cut. Mr. Solomon reports that he witnessed Kenyan soldiers shooting and killing his father, and shooting his uncle. Life became very hard for Mr. Solomon’s family without his father.

[10] Eventually Mr. Solomon was able to move to Canada with his mother and siblings when he was 10 years old. The family did not have money and lived in hard conditions – places infested with cockroaches and bedbugs. He described sometimes going to bed hungry. There was also crime and violence. He did not feel like he had a childhood.

[11] Unfortunately, as a very young person and not long after arriving in Canada, Mr. Solomon began to accumulate criminal convictions. In 2011, at age 12, he was convicted of uttering threats, four counts of fail to comply with a recognizance, robbery, theft under $5000, two counts of obstruct police, trespass by night, possession of stolen property, four counts of fail to comply with a youth disposition, and possession of a schedule II substance. In 2012, Mr. Solomon’s criminal behaviour began to escalate. He started to receive custodial sentences. He was convicted of robbery with a firearm, fail to comply with a disposition, and obstructing a peace officer. In 2015 Mr. Solomon accumulated more convictions and spent more time in custody. He was convicted of possession of stolen property, failing to attend court, four counts of failing to comply with a youth sentence, obstructing a police officer, prison breach, and two counts failing to comply with a recognizance.

[12] In 2016 Mr. Solomon received his first adult convictions. In December of that year, he was convicted of possession of a weapon, assaulting a peace officer, and unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon in a motor vehicle knowing its possession was unauthorized. It appears that that conviction was in relation to a firearm. The passing of sentence was suspended in light of 13 months of pre-sentence custody.

[13] Ms. Monaco, on behalf of Mr. Solomon, filed two psychological reports. The first was a very detailed psychological risk assessment report by Dr. Giorgio Ilacqua. The second report was a report by Katerina Razumova, a registered Psychotherapist.

[14] Dr. Ilacqua met with Mr. Solomon twice at the Toronto East in July and August 2021 for clinical interviews. His office also administered psychometric testing. Dr. Ilacqua took a detailed family and personal history form Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon admitted to behavioural problems as a young teenager. He told Dr. Ilacqua that he was “always angry”. He only completed Grade 11 and had multiple behavioural problems. He distrusted those around him. He recounted to Dr. Ilacqua that he had some employment history but that “I don’t like being controlled.” He said that he was fired twice for smoking marijuana while working in warehouses.

[15] The one positive relationship that Mr. Solomon appears to have (other than his immediate family) is his girlfriend Katrina, who continues to support him.

[16] It is clear from Dr. Ilacqua’s report that Mr. Solomon associated with a negative peer group. He had a group of four or five friends, of whom “three or four” are involved in the justice system.

[17] Dr. Ilacqua stated in his report that Mr. Solomon’s history includes:

…unaddressed traumata stemming from his childhood and adolescence. He was a refuee, witness to his father, uncle, and friend’s fatal shootings as well as an attempted rape of his mother.

[18] Dr. Ilacqua pointed to the loss of his father, acculturation problems in school, and inability to form meaningful attachments or healthy interpersonal relationships. Dr. Ilacqua’s diagnosis is that Mr. Solomon presents with Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Based on testing, he found that Mr. Solomon presents with a moderate-high risk for future involvement in the criminal justice system.

[19] Ms. Razumova provided a letter dated February 24, 2023. She had conducted psychotherapy sessions with him by FaceTime starting in January 2023. She noted that Mr. Solomon presents with moderate to above average levels of anxiety and PTSD. She noted that Mr. Solomon is insightful about his family history and his processing. She opined that he could benefit from a continued course of cognitive behavioural therapy.

(f) Impact on the victims

[20] Mr. Xu did not provide a victim impact statement. It cannot be doubted that being kidnapped at gunpoint, zip-tied, duct-taped, and tossed in a trunk is terrifying and traumatizing. How could it not be? Mr. Renouf, Mr. Solomon’s fellow inmate, also did not provide a victim impact statement. That was likely due to inmate culture. Again, how could a slash across the face requiring 40 stitches not be traumatizing?

3. Positions of the Crown and Defense

[21] Ms. Rokach, for the Crown, argues that Mr. Solomon should be sentenced to a global sentence of 8 ½ years: 7 years for the three kidnapping offences; one year consecutive for the aggravated assault; and three month consecutive sentences (but concurrent to each other) for the incidents involving the correctional officers.

[22] Ms. Monaco, for Mr. Solomon, argues that Mr. Solomon should be sentenced to a global sentence of about 6.4 years, broken down as follows: 5 years for the kidnapping charges; 1 year for the aggravated assault, and the remainder for the incidents involving the correctional officers. This sentence, along with some 9.6 months of Duncan credit and time served (at 1.5:1) of about 5.6 years, would amount to 6.4 years and put Mr. Solomon in a time-served position.

4. Aggravating Factors

[23] An important aggravating factor in this case is Mr. Solomon’s unceasing criminal behaviour. As noted, his criminal record began when he was very young. It has continued into adulthood. The gunpoint kidnapping was foolishly conceived and incompetently executed, but it was nonetheless extraordinarily dangerous and serious. Mr. Solomon’s record in custody is decidedly mixed. While he has taken rehabilitative steps in custody, he has also managed to accumulate criminal convictions and over 40 institutional misconducts.

[24] I do not wish to minimize the offences committed against correctional officers, because they are threats to the administration of justice and cannot in any way be condoned. That said, I am aware that there are serious pressures on both correctional officers and inmates. The staff levels are low, inmates are often locked down, and the COVID-19 pandemic has sometimes led to inmates kept in their cells for 23 hours per day – or more. Tempers can flare and people can do things they regret. Mr. Solomon, to his credit, has admitted as much.

[25] A similar point can be made about institutional misconducts. I can understand as well how such conditions can generate institutional misconducts. As I recently stated in R. v. Gordon, 2023 ONSC 1036:

In my view, a sentencing judge must be very careful in considering institutional misconducts. Institutional misconducts should not be treated as aggravating factors in the same way that a criminal record is treated as an aggravating factor. These are not crimes (unless charges are also laid, which sometimes happens). They are also not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As well, institutional misconducts should generally not be used to reduce any mitigation arising from harsh conditions of custody. That could be unfair. Inmates are often under psychological stress because of difficult conditions. Those stresses can result in tempers flaring, outbursts, anger, or refusals to follow the lawful orders of correctional officers. Obviously individual situations will differ, but in my respectful view, a judge considering institutional misconducts by an inmate should bear that in mind.

[26] In his affidavit, Mr. Solomon admits that some of his misconducts involved over-reacting and doing things he regretted.

[27] In Gordon, I went on to state:

Institutional misconducts may say something about a person’s potential for rehabilitation. In this case, Mr. Gordon has engaged in what appears to be a pattern of institutional misconduct… I give the misconducts limited weight because they can be driven by many factors. As well, I am mindful that they have not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt… But these misconduct findings contribute to the overall picture – and the picture is of a person without a great deal of insight into his own behaviour…

[28] Regrettably, these comments also apply to some degree to Mr. Solomon. A small number of institutional misconducts may, under some circumstances, say more about the institution than they do about the misconducts. A very large number, however, when combined with criminal conduct, presents a pattern that may say more about Mr. Solomon’s uneven attempts at rehabilitation than it does about the institution. Although I give the misconducts only limited weight, they nonetheless still play a role.

5. Mitigating Factors

[29] The most important mitigating factor here is obviously Mr. Solomon’s guilty plea to several offences. A guilty plea means that the offender takes responsibility for his actions. It saves the government time and resources. It also spares the witnesses from testifying.

[30] Mr. Solomon has taken many courses offered by the Ministry while in custody. These courses are generally directed toward dealing with issues such as substance abuse, life skills, and building healthy relationships. He has also registered for a high school English course through Amadeusz, a social services agency supporting young inmates. I find these efforts at rehabilitation to be mitigating.

[31] Letters of support were also filed by Mr. Solomon’s mother, his uncle, his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s mother, and his pastor. Two letters of support were filed by inmates with whom he has spent time in custody. I read all of these letters very carefully. They are very positive letters. His mother spoke movingly of the poverty and hunger that helped shape his upbringing but asserted that Mr. Solomon is actually a kind and loving person. She attributed his poor choices to the many obstacles she and the family have faced. His uncle acknowledged that he has made poor choices but has always been a loving and loyal family man. His girlfriend, who has stuck with Mr. Solomon through the many years of criminality and incarceration, says that he has impacted her life for the better, and that he is a “very wise and intellectual” young man. His girlfriend’s mother also filed a letter of support indicating that she believes Mr. Solomon is a “hard working man with good morals.” Mr. Solomon also filed two letters of support from fellow inmates who described how he has helped them in prison, and set a good example.

[32] It is hard to square the description of Mr. Solomon in these letters with the same person who has a record that includes a robbery with a firearm, a gunpoint kidnapping, a wounding with a shank that required 40 stitches to close, assaults on correctional officers, and numerous institutional misconducts.

[33] That said, I accept that Mr. Solomon has a robust and loving support system made up of his family, his girlfriend, and his religious community. I find that to be an important mitigating factor, even if I am a little skeptical about their descriptions of him.

[34] Mr. Solomon did endure harsh conditions of custody. I will describe those conditions when I consider his pre-sentence custody. I will treat those conditions as mitigating as well.

[35] Another mitigating factor are racial slurs allegedly used by a correctional officer against Mr. Solomon. On June 9, 2020 Ms. Monaco wrote to the supervising authorities of the Toronto East Detention Centre. She wrote that she became aware of a verbal exchange between her client and a correctional officer. She learned of this exchange from other clients who were in segregation with Mr. Solomon. Apparently during this exchange the correctional officer used a word beginning with the letter “n” that is known to all as a very derogatory racial slur. Ms. Monaco asked that the institution undertake an investigation; that the correctional officer provide a written apology to Mr. Solomon; and that disciplinary steps be taken against the correctional officer. She asked to be kept informed about any investigations. On June 10, 2020, the next day, an official called Ms. Monaco. The official told Ms. Monaco that the incident was under investigation. On June 18, 2020, Ms. Monaco wrote again. She asked for an update and described a new alleged incident between the correctional officer and Mr. Solomon. Ms. Monaco has never received a response regarding the alleged racial slur.

[36] In my view, it is utterly inappropriate that the authorities never responded or updated Ms. Monaco on the results of the investigation. Indeed, it is not clear that there was an investigation, one phone call aside. No doubt many trivial and frivolous complaints are made to the prison authorities. There is no obligation to follow up on trivial and frivolous complaints. A serious allegation of racism made by a lawyer on behalf of a client is not trivial or frivolous. It is a matter that must be followed up. One hesitates to make a finding that a correctional officer has made a racist comment to an inmate. The failure of the institution to follow up suggests that an adverse inference should be drawn, and I do draw it. I find that Mr. Solomon was subject to racial slurs from a correctional officer. This is absolutely unacceptable. In my view it should be treated as a mitigating factor.

6. Principles of Sentencing

[37] The purposes of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718.1 and s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental principle is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This case involves a gunpoint kidnapping, the mutilation of a fellow jail inmate, and assaults and threats against correctional officers. The kidnapping must be denounced in no uncertain terms. The courts have sent the message over and over again that crimes involving firearms will be met with exemplary sentences, especially those who use a firearm as a tool of the criminal trade, as happened here. The other offences, all of which took place in prison settings, must also be denounced – and deterred. Rehabilitation is, of course, also an important goal of sentencing. The judge’s challenge is to craft a sentence that sufficiently denounces and deters criminal conduct, while also recognizing that it is a goal of sentencing to rehabilitate offenders. It is a balancing act, and the balance is different for everyone.

7. Ancillary Orders

[38] There will be a s. 109 order for life, and a DNA order.

8. Sentence Imposed

[39] When I review the materials provided by Ms. Monaco, and read Mr. Solomon’s statement, the picture emerges of a young man who has suffered from much adversity. He grew up in a refugee camp, lost a parent in an incomparably traumatic way, and tried to acclimatize to a new country while living in a neighbourhood with poverty and crime. It was not, however, predetermined that he would become involved in the justice system – other members of his family have worked hard, started businesses, and become successful. I accept, however, that he has had serious obstacles to overcome.

[40] Few people are all good or all bad. A person is more than just his or her criminal record. On the one hand, the members of Mr. Solomon’s family and his church community – and his friends in custody – speak of a young man who is compassionate and always willing to help his family and friends. Mr. Solomon has made efforts to rehabilitate himself in custody. He has certainly suffered while in custody. The extended periods of isolation and the racism are utterly unacceptable. All those factors are mitigating, and I take them into account.

[41] On the other hand, however, I have serious concerns about Mr. Solomon. I reviewed the letters of support in detail, as I have mentioned. As an example, his mother is clearly anguished over the turn his life has taken. She writes, understandably, of his positive qualities. She says that he was starting to mature when he was arrested for the kidnapping offence. Others who have provided support letters have also stated that he has matured in custody. I accept that all the people who support Mr. Solomon are sincere, love him, and want to help and support him. Given the choices he has made, and the pain he has brought to their lives by his foolish and reckless decisions, he is extremely lucky to have this support.

[42] Unfortunately, however, I have doubts that Mr. Solomon has matured and is ready to turn a new leaf. Mr. Solomon has shown an inordinate disposition for violent crimes involving guns, and a reckless disregard of social and legal rules. I accept that he is sincere when he says that he wants to turn his life around, but the pattern of criminality and misconduct strongly suggests that he may not be able to help himself. I do not doubt that his lengthy stay in remand facilities, his lengthy stays in isolation, and the pressures and isolation of the pandemic have been an important part of the story. But they are only part of the story. Mr. Solomon is now at serious risk of becoming a career criminal. If he does not take his rehabilitation seriously and put in the work necessary to turn his life around, he may well find himself facing more serious charges in the future and spending every lengthening periods in custody. Having reviewed Dr. Ilaqua’s report, there is some evidence to suggest that the administration of justice offences on his criminal record – such as his convictions for breach of recognizance – may stem from disorganized thinking and other psychological problems. That, however, does not explain the dangerous combination of violence and the use of firearms that is part of his record – and part of this case. Regrettably, I think that there is evidence that Mr. Solomon remains a potential danger to public safety. It is impossible not to note the symmetry of trauma in this case: incredible trauma was inflicted on Mr. Solomon when he was a very young person. He obviously knows the consequences of traumatic events. That did not stop him from inflicting the significant trauma of a gunpoint kidnapping of Mr. Xu or committing a robbery with a firearm.

[43] The next question is the amount of credit for harsh conditions of custody: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. Duncan credit is different from the statutory credit of 1.5:1: Criminal Code, s. 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. Duncan credit is to be treated as a mitigating factor. As Doherty J.A. stated in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at para. 52:

The "Duncan" credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. 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.

[44] Mr. Solomon has been in custody since August 19, 2019. As of today’s date, that is 1344 days. When credited at 1.5:1, that is 2016 days or just over 67 months – a total of just over 5 years and 7 months. Ms. Monaco points out that Mr. Solomon has spent at least 395 days in lockdown. She argues that Mr. Solomon should be credited with just under 200 days of Duncan credit. Globally, that would work out to over another 6 ½ months that he should receive credit for. That would work out to a total credited amount in custody of over six years. When the mitigating factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Solomon’s lack of access to programming, telephones, family, and racist incidents is factored in, she argues that a time-served sentence is in order.

[45] I have the lockdown records for the Toronto East Detention Centre, the Maplehurst Correctional Centre, the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre, and the Toronto South Detention Centre. These are the places where Mr. Solomon has spent time while in custody.

[46] Mr. Solomon was at Toronto East from August 24, 2019 to July 5, 2020 and then from November 23 2020 to September 1, 2021. While at Toronto East Mr. Solomon was subjected to 55 lockdowns, although only 3 of these were full-day lockdowns. More troublingly, Mr. Solomon spent a great deal of time in the Specialized Care Unit. Inmates in this unit are supposed to have a minimum of two hours per day out of their cells. Mr. Solomon did not receive his full two hours on 278 occasions. Mr. Solomon also accumulated 39 misconducts at Toronto East. These statistics may have some relationship, which is one reason I give the misconducts limited weight.

[47] Mr. Solomon spent a total of 118 days over two periods at Maplehurst. These two periods were during some of the worst of the pandemic, from July to October 2020, and November 2020. During that time he was subject to 55 full day lockdowns and 8 partial lockdowns. He also accumulated 4 institutional misconducts, and committed the aggravated assault on his fellow inmate.

[48] Mr. Solomon spent a relatively short period of time at Elgin-Middlesex, from October 25, 2020 to November 16, 2020. He spent 12 days in segregation and did not receive the minimum of two hours outside his cell.

[49] Mr. Solomon has spent the remainder of his time at the Toronto South. Much of that time was spent in segregation. According to the Toronto South records Mr. Solomon was subject to 265 lockdowns, although only 39 of these were full day lockdowns.

[50] According to Ms. Monaco (and I accept her math) Mr. Solomon has been subjected to a total of 395 full or partial lockdowns while in custody as of the date of the sentencing hearing.

[51] I reviewed Mr. Solomon’s affidavit. I am, of course, generally aware of conditions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and the Toronto South Detention Centre as a result of being a judge hearing criminal cases in this jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Mr. Solomon provides a significant level of detail. He described the isolation and lack of fresh air, lack of access to showers and phones, and lack of access to programming. He also described the “unbearable” time he spent in isolation. Mr. Solomon described triple bunking at Toronto East on many occasions. He described the racial slurs that I have mentioned. He described his mail being tampered with (something that Ms. Monaco also brought to the attention of the prison authorities and asked for an explanation). He described an infestation of mice at Toronto South as well as silverfish – and provided photographs taken by a correctional officer. He spent the entirety of the pandemic in custody. No doubt, given the droplet protocols in place and other impacts it made a miserable jail experience that much worse. I find that the harsh conditions of custody, endured for a lengthy period of time, are mitigating factors.

[52] In my view, however, a time served sentence at this point would not serve the principles of sentencing.

[53] The severity of these crimes calls for a strong denunciatory sentence, one that also includes elements of general and specific deterrence. Regrettably, it would not be a fit sentence. It would insufficiently denounce these serious crimes. It would also not protect the public. As Doherty J.A. warned in Marshall, the Duncan credit cannot “devour” an otherwise fit sentence: R. v. Marshall at para. 53. At the same time, I a period of incarceration in the penitentiary would offend against the principle of totality in this case given Mr. Solomon’s age.

[54] In my view a global sentence of 8 years would be appropriate before accounting for the mitigating factors and Duncan credit I have mentioned. When I look at the gravity of the offences, especially the kidnapping and the aggravated assault, I think 8 years is lenient. An 8 year global sentence acknowledges the severity of the crimes, but balances the fact that Mr. Solomon is a very young man and has spent an enormous amount of his young life in custody and still has rehabilitative prospects. I credit Mr. Solomon with a year of Duncan credit for the harsh conditions of custody, including being in custody during COVID and the presence of vermin and silverfish in the cells, and the racism he experienced. He is credited with a total of 7 years in custody – combined Summers and Duncan credit – and will therefore be required to serve another year.

[55] The proper approach where several sentences must be allocated and the principle of totality is engaged was set out in R. v. Jewell (1995), 100 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (Ont.C.A.). The sentencing court should determine the gravamen of the criminal conduct, determine a fit global sentence, and then allocate the time periods.

[56] The following sentence is imposed:

Indictment CR 21-30000518:

• Count 6 – Kidnapping She Xu, contrary to s. 279(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: 7 years with 7 years credit, time served.
• Count 7 – Assaulting She Xu by threatening to use a firearm, contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code: 3 years with 3 years credit for time served, concurrent to count 6 on the same indictment, Indictment CR 21-30000518.
• Count 8 – Possession of stolen property under $5000.00, namely the licence plate, contrary to s. 354(1) of the Criminal Code: 6 months with 6 months credit for time served, concurrent to count 6 on the same indictment, Indictment CR 21-30000518.

Indictment CR 23-30000267-0000:

• Count 1 – Attempting to disarm a peace officer, contrary to s. 270.1(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 months, consecutive to Count 6 on Indictment CR 21-30000518 (kidnapping), concurrent to sentences on Indictment CR 23-30000266-0000 and Indictment CR 23-30000268-0000.

Indictment CR 23-30000266-0000:

• Count 1 – Aggravated assault on Raneil FAGAN, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code: 1 year, consecutive to Count 6 on Indictment CR 21-30000518 (kidnapping), concurrent to sentences on Indictment CR 23-30000267-0000 and Indictment CR 23-30000268-0000.
• Count 2 – Possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to s. 88(1) of the Criminal Code: 3 months, consecutive to Count 6 on Indictment CR 21-30000518 (kidnapping), concurrent to sentences on Indictment CR 23-30000267-0000 and Indictment CR 23-30000268-0000 (and concurrent to Count 1 on the same indictment, Indictment CR 23-30000266-0000).

Indictment CR 23-30000268-0000:

• Count 1 – assault on a peace officer, Triton RENOUF, contrary to Section 270(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: 3 months, consecutive to Count 6 on Indictment CR 21-30000518 (kidnapping), concurrent to sentences on Indictment CR 23-30000267-0000 and Indictment CR 23-30000266-0000.
• Count 3 – utter a death threat to Dylan PINNAVARIA, contrary to Section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: 3 months, consecutive to Count 6 on Indictment CR 21-30000518 (kidnapping), concurrent to sentences on Indictment CR 23-30000267-0000 and Indictment CR 23-30000266-0000 (and concurrent to Count 1 on the same indictment, Indictment CR 23-30000268-0000).

[57] As noted, there will also be DNA order, and a s. 109 order for life.

[58] I am also going to put Mr. Solomon on probation for three years. In addition to the statutory terms, the terms will be;

• Report to a probation officer within 48 hours of release and thereafter once per month on a date and in a manner to be required by the probation officer;
• Possess no weapons as defined by the Criminal Code;
• Possess no non-medically prescribed drugs or narcotics;
• Live at an address approved of by the probation officer and notify the probation officer of any change of address within 48 hours;
• Take counselling as directed by the probation officer and sign any releases required for the probation officer to monitor progress;
• Seek and maintain employment, or attend school, and provide documentation of employment, a job search, or tuition to the probation officer.

[59] These terms of probation are relatively onerous. The terms are designed to provide a measure of protection to the public. The terms are also designed to provide Mr. Solomon with community support, and to give him an incentive to turn his life around as he says he does. If Mr. Solomon is making good progress then he is certainly entitled to return before me to apply for a variation of his probation conditions.

R.F. Goldstein J. Released: April 28, 2023