COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-170-00 DATE: 2024-07-12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING Mr. J. McConnell, for the Crown
- and -
GREGORY PARKER Mr. M. Smith, for the Accused
HEARD: May 14, 2024, at Thunder Bay, Ontario Madam Justice H.M. Pierce
Reasons for Sentence
Overview
[1] What is a fit sentence on a guilty plea by a 42-year-old man to possession of 450 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?
The Facts
Circumstances of the Offence
[2] The following facts were read into evidence and accepted as correct by Mr. Parker.
[3] On April 8, 2021, police executed a search warrant for drugs at a residence in the City of Thunder Bay. Mr. Parker was one of two people found in the residence.
[4] The police found the following items during their search of the residence:
a) a safe located in the basement containing $134,150 in one bundle of currency, $8,000 in other currency, and 29 grams of fentanyl;
b) the sum of $2,780 in currency on the floor of the basement;
c) in the living room, a taser, $425 in cash, some glasses case containing 74 grams of cocaine, 9 oxycodone pills, and 6.4 grams of fentanyl;
d) in the south bedroom closet, 28 grams of fentanyl, a scale, $115 in currency, and a water bottle containing $3,353.65 in coins;
e) in the main area of the south bedroom, currency in amounts of $20,050 and $4,270, a debt list, a shipping label to the residence address, 24 grams of white powder not identified as drugs, and 450 grams of cocaine;
f) a makeup purse containing 5.5 grams of PCP, 1 gram of fentanyl, 6.5 grams of cocaine, 3 grams of MDMA (ecstasy), 5.9 grams of ketamine, 10 oxycodone pills, 2 methamphetamine pills, 153.8 grams of benzocaine (which is not prohibited), currency in the amount of $332, 57 grams of cocaine, 46 grams of cocaine, 21 grams of MDMA, and 9 grams of cocaine;
g) 2 scales and 5 cell phones found elsewhere in the residence.
[5] In his plea, Mr. Parker acknowledged responsibility for 450 grams of cocaine.
Circumstances of the Offender
[6] Mr. Parker testified about the impact that his bail conditions have had on him. He submits that they should be considered for a Downes credit.
[7] Mr. Parker was 41 years old at the sentencing hearing and is 42 years old at the date of this decision. At the time of his arrest on April 8, 2021, he lived in Ajax, Ontario. He was released on bail on April 21, 2021, with conditions that he live with his sureties, who are his mother and his sister, under house arrest, and that he wears an ankle monitor at a cost of $500 per month until January 2024.
[8] As the Crown did not consent to vary his bail, he was unable to seek employment for 2 ½ years. Thus, he was unable to contribute to the household costs, which fell on his mother and sister. He is currently employed as a caretaker with the City of Toronto.
[9] Physically, Mr. Parker put on substantial weight because he was unable to be active, although he conceded that the pandemic lockdowns had an impact. The ankle monitor was too tight until it was adjusted. He also suffered from knee and back problems.
[10] Mr. Parker is the father to one step-child and one biological child, neither of whom live with him. Particularly distressing to him was his inability to help with the costs associated with his son’s Type 1 Diabetes or to assist with taking the children to school or soccer games.
[11] He indicated that, mentally, he was irritable and embarrassed. He split up with his girlfriend and was embarrassed in front of his friends and family because of his actions.
[12] A pre-sentence report was filed as an exhibit at the sentencing hearing. It contained the following information about the offender.
[13] Although estranged from his biological father who lives in Jamaica, and also not having a good relationship with his mother’s current husband, Mr. Parker is protective of his mother, who came to Canada as an immigrant. He has two half-siblings.
[14] Growing up, the offender was athletic, was heavily involved in basketball, was interested in reading, and was a good student. His siblings and neighbourhood children looked up to him as a positive influence, due to his athleticism and his intellect.
[15] He received scholarship offers which, to his regret, he did not pursue. He graduated from a college-level Recreation and Leisure Services program in 2007 and was hired on as a mentor at the recreation centre where he spent much of his childhood.
[16] In 2013, Mr. Parker opened a restaurant with his step-brother. Their neighbourhood restaurant was successful, and it sponsored free meal programs and backpack giveaways. Unfortunately, Mr. Parker’s step-brother came into conflict with the law and the restaurant closed in 2018.
[17] Mr. Parker’s ex-girlfriend, who is the mother of his biological child and his step-child, describes Mr. Parker as an exceptional father who is heavily involved in every aspect of the children’s lives, including their education, extracurricular activities, and health. Because their child has Type 1 Diabetes, the child is on a strict health plan, which Mr. Parker has always overseen. Specifically, he purchases and prepares the child’s daily meals and monitors his medication. Mr. Parker’s ex-girlfriend identified his support for her and their children as making it possible for her to pursue her career.
[18] At the time the pre-sentence report was prepared, Mr. Parker related that he was employed as an outreach worker at a Basketball Outreach Program in Scarborough.
[19] With respect to his substance use, Mr. Parker acknowledged that he consumed marijuana for a period in his life but has not done that for the past seven years. He relayed that he is a social drinker. His mother indicated that she had not observed any substance use issues.
[20] When questioned about the current offence, Mr. Parker explained that his family had experienced financial hardship for many years, such that their collective income was insufficient to pay the mortgage and other financial responsibilities. He indicated that his stepfather was not contributing financially to the family’s expenses and he felt that his mother and sister were burdened financially.
[21] Mr. Parker felt that his contribution to the family’s expenses was insufficient and so he decided to sell drugs to alleviate the financial hardship.
[22] Mr. Parker expressed remorse for his actions, shame, and embarrassment. He indicated that it was very hard to tell his children about his charge. He also felt like a poor role model to his, and the neighbourhood’s, children. He told the probation officer, “I did not want to do this, but I needed to make ends meet quickly.”
[23] Mr. Parker’s mother was shocked to hear about his charges because she believed that he was living a pro-social lifestyle. Mr. Parker explained, “I encouraged kids in the community to stay away from selling or using drugs, but I got engaged in it.”
[24] The Crown does not allege a prior criminal record.
Testimonial Letters
[25] The defence filed eight impressive letters of support for Mr. Parker, which included reports from individuals who have worked with Mr. Parker in programming designed to mentor young people in high crime areas. The court appreciates the time these individuals have taken to write about Mr. Parker and about the role he has played in their lives.
[26] Mr. Larry Brereton, program director with the Youth Excellence Project Association operating since in 2017, describes Mr. Parker as leading the mentorship workshop “which focuses on teaching youths to avoid the lures of illegal activities and the consequences that can result from that lifestyle.”
[27] Another testimonial comes from Kacy Knight, who was Mr. Parker’s a co-worker at the Boys and Girls Club of East Scarborough for six years. She describes his “strong communication, leadership and mentoring skills, and the regard in which he was held by children and staff as a positive influence in the community.”
[28] Volunteer Coordinator at BGC East Scarborough, Michelle Joseph, worked with and has known Mr. Parker since 2013 when he served as Program Supervisor for the out-of-school programs for children and youth in East Scarborough. She was laudatory about his skills and abilities.
[29] Three testimonials were provided by childhood friends, one of whom was Ludlow Buckley, who described Mr. Parker as playing the role of big brother and mentor, encouraging athletics, academics, and life skills.
[30] Donald Lindo has been Mr. Parker’s friend for 25 years. He observed that Mr. Parker is “an honourable individual, an upstanding father, friend, and valued member of the community.”
[31] Aaron Wiltshire is a friend of Mr. Parker’s from high school. He described how their high school was surrounded by high crime areas and that avoiding it was difficult. He described how he was a grade below Mr. Parker and how “Greg would tell us to hurry up and get to class when we were late, he would also encourage us not to smoke, drink or get into trouble.” He also explained how Mr. Parker “led by example and did look out for us and encouraged us to do better.”
[32] Dianne Eunick is Mr. Parker’s mother. She described her son mentoring children in sports and at church. As well, she described the important role that her son plays in tending to his son’s nutritional, medical, and educational needs, driving him to and from school, and the additional care he provides for his two nieces. Ms. Eunick also described the invaluable assistance her son provides her in running the household, gardening, and home maintenance.
[33] Ms. Eunick concludes her letter by imploring the court to give Mr. Parker a conditional sentence so that he can continue to support his family, particularly his son. I appreciate Ms. Eunick’s comments; however, it is an inevitable aspect of sentencing an individual that his family and friends suffer from the impact of the person’s absence. For that, I am sorry.
[34] Finally, Mr. Parker’s former partner, Janeen Alexander, has written in his support. They are parents to their 12-year-old son, who was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes in April 2022. Mr. Parker’s care and support of the child since his diagnosis has allowed her to continue with her demanding career.
[35] In addition, Mr. Parker is a father figure to Ms. Alexander’s three other sons. She describes him as a devoted father, prioritizing the children’s needs, and being actively engaged in their everyday lives, education, and extracurricular activities, providing transportation to and from school and to after-school programs.
[36] Ms. Alexander characterizes Mr. Parker as an outstanding individual and a person of impeccable character, who demonstrates integrity, a strong sense of responsibility, unwavering dedication to his family, and who actively engages in his community.
Position of the Parties
Position of the Crown
[37] The Crown submits that in Ontario, the range of sentence for drug trafficking on a commercial scale is a penitentiary term of between three to four years.
[38] The Crown seeks a sentence that will emphasize denunciation and deterrence since the offender’s motivation for trafficking on a commercial scale was purely economic: he did not feel he was earning enough money at his existing employment and was looking for a quick profit. The Crown argues that the penalty for conviction should outweigh the financial reward of trafficking if this kind of activity is to be deterred. Mr. Parker is not an addict, nor a youthful or immature offender.
[39] The Crown also points to a flood of drug traffickers who have set up operations in Thunder Bay, to the detriment of the citizens. He argues that Mr. Parker decided to come to Thunder Bay to place youngsters at risk.
[40] The Crown seeks the following ancillary orders:
a) a weapons prohibition for 10 years pursuant to s. 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code;
b) a sample of DNA to the DNA Data Bank;
c) a victim fine surcharge; and
d) forfeiture of anything seized.
Position of the Defence
[41] The defence submits that a conditional sentence of two years less a day is available and appropriate so that Mr. Parker could serve his sentence in the community. The defence argues that such a sentence would meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence and would keep Mr. Parker under the supervision of the court.
[42] The defence submits that Mr. Parker is remorseful. He has been on bail under strict conditions for about three years without incident. He has the support of family and friends and can be a productive member of the community.
[43] Alternatively, if the court accepts the Crown’s submission for a custodial sentence, the defence submits that Mr. Parker should be given 18 months credit in accordance with a Downes analysis. The basis for this submission is two-fold. First, that Mr. Parker was subject to bail conditions for 1,119 days and which were akin to house arrest. The defence cites the strict conditions during house arrest that had an impact on his daily activity, including his ability to work. Secondly, the Crown resisted defence requests to loosen bail restrictions until after Mr. Parker’s guilty plea in January 2024.
Principles of Sentencing
[44] Section 718 of the Criminal Code describes the purpose of sentencing as follows:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[45] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code dictates that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code also provides the parity principle – that sentences should be similar in similar cases.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
[46] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code directs a court when sentencing to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
[47] The defence points to several mitigating factors, including Mr. Parker’s guilty plea, saving the court time and resources, his remorse, and the fact that he has no criminal record. In addition, he has the support of his family, his former partner, and his pro-social behaviour at the age of 42. Mr. Parker is motivated to better himself and those who he comes into contact with in the community.
[48] The defence acknowledged the following factors as aggravating: that Mr. Parker is not a resident of Thunder Bay; that he was arrested surrounded by the accoutrements of drug trafficking; that he had in his possession 450 grams of cocaine; the impact of drugs in this jurisdiction, and his illegal conduct which is hard to reconcile with his values.
[49] The Crown points out that while Mr. Parker entered a guilty plea, it did not occur until the date set for the commencement of trial. A review of the indictment shows that the three days set for trial could have been used for other cases, and were wasted. I agree with the Crown’s submission that while it was a guilty plea, it was not an early guilty plea, which would have saved the court resources. In a time when the courts are trying to make-up for backlogs from the pandemic, it is an important distinction.
[50] The Crown also points to the following aggravating factors: namely, that Thunder Bay is suffering from a plague of fentanyl.
[51] Had Mr. Parker pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, I would have agreed with this submission. However, his plea is to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
[52] Nevertheless, the context of Mr. Parker’s arrest is aggravating: the residence in which he was found was a veritable supermarket of drugs available for purchase, with a stun gun to defend the inventory. The variety of drugs and the amounts seized, including from Mr. Parker’s person, as well as the cash on hand, indicate trafficking on a commercial scale. That Mr. Parker was associated with this kind of enterprise is particularly shocking, given his professed remorse and value he places on pro-social behaviour as a role model and as a mentor to young people in his community.
[53] The Crown submits that the impact of the drug trafficking industry in Thunder Bay, and more broadly, in Canada, is aggravating, and on an individual level, the impact of these drugs on users, and by extension, their families, is aggravating, especially with hard drugs.
Discussion
[54] The defence seeks a conditional sentence. It cites the following cases in support. In my view, these cases are distinguishable for the reasons that follow.
[55] In R. v. DiPasquale, 2023 ONSC 758 (“DiPasquale”), the court accepted a joint submission of 12 months to be served as a conditional sentence, recognizing his guilty plea, the rehabilitation efforts taken by a 24-year-old accused, with no criminal record, who possessed 200 grams of cocaine in his bedroom safe. At para. 7, the Crown took the position that a high reformatory sentence was appropriate for a Schedule I offence involving commercial trafficking of cocaine.
[56] At para. 27 of DiPasquale, the court reflected on the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 (“Parranto”):
[27] In recent decisions referenced by Crown counsel, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have provided direction in sentencing offenders involved in drug trafficking. While the Supreme Court in Parranto and Felix addressed the appropriate sentence for trafficking in fentanyl, the court also commented generally about the seriousness of drug trafficking offences, particularly Schedule I substances, and the role of sentencing in “advancing public safety, hold[ing] those who distribute drugs accountable, and communicat[ing] the wrongfulness of poisoning people and communities”: at paras 105 – 108.
[57] In my view, the age of the offender, the smaller scale of the drug operation and the fact of a joint submission, set this case in a different class than the case at bar.
[58] In R. v. Presidente, 2012 BCSC 1636, the court imposed a conditional sentence upon a plea of guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and ecstasy, with a street value of $3,400, and to simple possession of cannabis, psilocybin, LSD, and morphine. The evidence, including cash seized, suggests that this was a low-level operation carried on by a man who was involved in business.
[59] This case, from British Columbia, predates the Supreme Court’s observations in Parranto, holding drug traffickers to account.
[60] The Crown relied on R. v. Mori, 2020 ONCJ 620 (“Mori”) and R. v. Crozier, 2021 ONCJ 235 (“Crozier”), in support of its position.
[61] In Mori, Justice De Filippis imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day upon a guilty plea for possession of a mixture of fentanyl and heroin for the purpose of trafficking. The court concluded that a penitentiary sentence was not required in view of “several unique factors.” These included his guilty plea, expression of remorse, bail for three years including house arrest and the inability to see his partner and children, completion of a residential treatment program, the availability of housing, family support, and a plan for rehabilitation going forward. The court accepted the accused’s explanation that he believed he had pure heroin, a substance to which he was addicted, and which he sold in sufficient quantities to support his addiction. The amount of the mixed drug seized by police was 38.66 grams.
[62] This case is distinguishable alone by the relatively small amount of drugs seized.
[63] By contrast, the same court imposed a three-year penitentiary term in Crozier, a case in which the accused was found with 475.7 grams of cocaine and what police described as a “cocaine processing station.”
[64] While a conditional sentence is available in this case, I am not persuaded, despite the able submissions of defence counsel, that a conditional sentence of two years less a day served in the community appropriately reflects the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence that the facts of this case cry out for.
[65] Mr. Parker does not require rehabilitation. He knows what pro-social living looks like. His family and friends surround him with it. It is the way he was raised.
[66] The courts have commented repeatedly on the harm that comes from drug trafficking, to the extent that I take judicial notice of these harms.
[67] In Parranto, the Supreme Court of Canada observed the following at para. 70:
While not raised by the parties or the court below, this appeal provides an opportunity to emphasize that, when assessing the gravity of the offence, it is open to both the sentencing judge and the Court of Appeal to take into account the offender’s willingness to exploit at-risk populations and communities. In this regard, choices which demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life increase not only the gravity of the offence but the moral culpability of the offender and may amount to an aggravating factor in sentencing.
[68] There are no victim impact statements from individuals standing before me complaining that Mr. Parker’s supply of drugs got them addicted to cocaine, interfered with their schooling, got them fired, or deprived them of opportunities or relationships they would otherwise have enjoyed with the partners, parents and children.
[69] There is no one to complain that their physical and mental health has been affected, their income misappropriated, leaving them marginalized or homeless. And yet I see them.
[70] There are no victim impact statements from families standing before me, from parents without their children or children without their parents, describing the pain they feel in having lost a loved one to a drug overdose, their grief on each succeeding anniversary of their death, or their birthdays. And yet I hear them.
[71] These are the voices of the sufferers, and yet the community harm does not end there.
[72] The emergency department of the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital is strained on a daily basis by people seeking care because they suffer the consequences of drug addictions. Sometimes they are brought to the hospital by first responders called out to save lives.
[73] Daily, police officers investigate, document, and arrest suspected drug traffickers, and attend at court to give evidence about it.
[74] And so, Mr. Parker, these are the consequences of your efforts to make a little extra money on the side, the real community impact. Your drug trafficking has increased the poverty and the misery of the people of this area from whose addiction you sought to profit. Thunder Bay has become a high crime area because of people like you and because of the drug trafficking activities you’ve participated in. You are responsible for that.
[75] It is particularly disturbing that your friends and family see you as a principled man and a role model. A principled man does not turn his principles on and off. He is principled whether or not someone is looking.
[76] Is that why you came to Thunder Bay with your 450 grams of cocaine – because no one here would recognize you and your reputation would be intact? Did you decide that the penalties are worth the risk of getting caught?
[77] Mr. Parker has been advantaged by a loving family, a supportive community, meaningful education, and sustaining employment. He is a leader. If we give our leaders a pass, what message does that send to other like-minded individuals?
[78] The quantity of drug seized, for which Mr. Parker took responsibility, the commercial accoutrements surrounding the seizure, his admitted commercial motivation, the fact that he was not an immature man, calls for a penitentiary sentence to denounce his conduct and to deter him and others like him who believe they can make more money in the drug trade by coming to Thunder Bay.
The Downes Calculation
[79] Mr. Parker seeks a Downes credit against his custodial sentence dues on the basis of his conditions of house arrest while on bail. The defence cited two cases in support of this submission, R. v. Thornton, 2015 ONSC 5280 (“Thornton”) and R. v. Campbell, 2021 ONSC 4193 (“Campbell”).
[80] In R. v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 37 (“Downes”), the Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that time spent on stringent bail conditions, especially house arrest, was mitigating when sentence was considered. The court set out an approach that trial judges should take in examining pre-trial bail conditions and determining what credit should be given based on time served in sentencing. These were summarized in Thornton, at para. 7, as follows:
- Time spent on stringent pre-sentence bail conditions, especially house arrest, is a relevant mitigating factor.
- As such, the trial judge must consider time spent on bail under house arrest in determining the length of sentence.
- The failure of the trial judge to explain why time spent on bail during house arrest has not been taken into account is an error in principle.
- The amount of credit to be given for time spent on bail under house arrest is within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no formula that the judge is required to apply.
- The amount of credit will depend upon a number of factors including, the length of time spent on bail under house arrest; the stringency of the conditions; the impact on the offender’s liberty; the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity.
- When the offender asks the trial judge to take pre-sentence bail conditions into account, the offender should supply the judge with information as to the impact of the conditions. If there is a dispute as to the impact of the conditions, the onus is on the offender to establish these facts on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code.
[81] Mr. Parker, who lives in Ajax, Ontario, has been on bail since April 21, 2021. His bail continued at this sentencing hearing. Unfortunately, the bail documents were not filed as part of the sentencing material. Therefore, my knowledge of terms of bail is limited to Mr. Parker’s testimony and the letters of support filed by his mother and partner.
[82] Initially, Mr. Parker was subject to house arrest, living with his surety (presumably his mother) and wearing an ankle monitor. The monitor was terminated in January 2024. In the last several months, his terms added his sister as surety. She lives with them. He has lived under house arrest now for more than three years.
[83] Mr. Parker characterized the terms of bail as having an impact on him financially, mentally, physically, and emotionally.
[84] Mr. Parker testified that the Crown refused to consent to relax his bail conditions for two and a half years and, as a result, he was unable to seek employment and contribute to the costs of the household or to the costs of his son’s diabetic needs. Ankle monitoring cost $500 per month. He explained that all of these costs fell on his mother and his sister.
[85] He testified that physically, his inactivity led to significant weight gain. The ankle monitor was too tight and had to be adjusted.
[86] Emotionally, he suffered the embarrassment of not being able to provide for his children. He was unable to take his children, who live with their mother, to school or soccer games. The children’s mother was stressed.
[87] Mentally, Mr. Parker stated that he was irritable, and embarrassed. He split up with his girlfriend.
[88] Mr. Parker conceded that Covid-19 lockdowns from the pandemic had been in effect in Ajax until recently.
[89] The defence submits that Mr. Parker had been subject to bail conditions for 1,119 days. Counsel argued that a half-day credit for each day of house arrest should be applied as was done in the cases of Campbell, and Thornton. It therefore proposes a credit of 18 months.
[90] There is no doubt that Mr. Parker was frustrated by his inability to work for the first two and a half years on bail. However, his mother’s letter describes him as providing his family with significant supports while he was on bail. She states that he:
… takes good care of his son that has been recently diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. He provides care for his son by cooking and providing healthy meals, administering his medications, and transporting him to and from school. In addition, he also takes care of his two nieces, and helps with all household duties, gardening, and maintenance around our home. Quite frankly, I’m not sure I would know what to do not having him around, because he is such a vital part of how my household runs.
[91] His son’s mother, Ms. Alexander, stated in her letter of support that:
In April 2022, our lives took a significant turn when our then 11-year-old- son was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This unexpected development brought about a steep learning curve for our family accompanied by several complications. Throughout this challenging journey, Greg has emerged as an invaluable source of support, demonstrating unwavering dedication to monitoring and caring for our son. His dedicated and compassionate approach has played a crucial role in navigating the complexities of our son’s condition, providing us with a sense of reassurance and guidance during a challenging time. Thanks to his unwavering support, I was able to continue my demanding work as a social worker for the City of Toronto.
[92] I also consider that upon the commencement of the pandemic in March 2020, there was a growing awareness of the risk of spreading infection, especially in prisons and other congregate settings, such that an effort was made to release as many persons awaiting bail as possible, as quickly as possible. A year later, when Mr. Parker was arrested, this approach was well-established.
[93] Because Mr. Parker was released to his mother’s home, he was sheltered from the greater risk of contracting Covid-19 arising from institutional incarceration. He was not subject to lock-downs experienced in the prisons which struggled with understaffing and efforts to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 virus.
[94] By comparison, Mr. Parker lived on bail in the privacy, security and comfort of his home. He was able to choose and prepare his meals and to cook for others, shower when he wished and make a meaningful contribution to the running of his mother’s home, as she described. In addition, he had access to his close family circle, including his children, for whom he was able to provide significant and meaningful care, as well as supporting his son’s mother, enabling her to work.
[95] House arrest did not interfere with Mr. Parker’s education. Undoubtedly the pandemic limited his employment options, especially during the first period of his house arrest when social activity was limited in the general population, by law.
[96] I do not doubt that he was embarrassed, and that his self-esteem was affected. That is a by-product of the charges, not of the terms of bail.
[97] I find that while a Downes credit is warranted, having regard for the above circumstances, it should be limited to six months.
Final Decision
[98] Mr. Parker, I sentence you as follows:
to three years and six months in penitentiary which is reduced by a Downes credit of six months, for a net sentence of three years and a further credit of 12 days for pre-trial custody of 8 days.
to a ten-year weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code;
to supply a sample of your DNA to the DNA Data Bank; and
an order will issue for forfeiture of anything seized.
[99] In view of the sentence, the victim fine surcharge is waived. This is the sentence of the court.
“originally signed by”
The Hon. Madam Justice H.M. Pierce