Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-00000208-0000 CR-24-30000532-000 DATE: 20240917 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – TREVELL GREENE

Counsel: C. Otter, for the Crown L. Gensey, for Mr. Greene

HEARD: September 9, 2024

REASONS FOR SENTENCE [1]

SCHRECK J.:

[1] Trevell Greene was only 18 years when he and his companions shot two people several times during the course of a home invasion robbery. Two years later, while in custody awaiting trial for that offence, he took part in a protracted beating of another inmate. He has pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

[2] Mr. Greene is a young Black man who grew up in an impoverished and racialized neighbourhood. Although he has a youth record for possession of a firearm, his prospects for rehabilitation remain positive.

[3] As is often the case, determining an appropriate sentence in this case requires the court to balance different and often competing sentencing objectives. Mr. Greene’s offences are violent and serious, and the sentence imposed must give effect to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. At the same time, Mr. Greene is young and his background mitigates his level of moral blameworthiness to some extent, so the objective of rehabilitation remains important.

[4] The following reasons explain how I have attempted to balance these objectives.

I. FACTS

A. The Offences

(i) Aggravated Assault

[5] In the early morning hours of July 26, 2020, Mr. Greene and several other individuals went to an apartment building on Dawes Road in Toronto. It was Mr. Greene’s understanding that they were there to rob the occupants of a specific apartment in the building. Mr. Greene was in possession of a firearm, as was one of the others. A third man was armed with a crowbar.

[6] Two men and a woman were in the apartment when Mr. Greene and the others arrived. They entered and demanded money. While Mr. Greene had not intended to use the firearm when he went there, the confrontation escalated and he and the other person with a firearm shot the two male occupants of the apartment several times. One of the firearms was discharged at least nine times and the other at least four times, although it is unknown which person had which gun.

[7] One of the victims sustained gunshot wounds in his back, near his right buttock, the right tibial area and the left foot. He had to undergo multiple surgeries and spent several weeks in the hospital. His life was endangered as a result of the shooting.

[8] The second victim was shot in the left chest, the right side of his body and his hand. He also underwent surgery and spent several weeks in the hospital.

[9] The third occupant of the apartment was not shot but suffered psychological trauma as a result of having witnessed the incident.

(ii) Assault Causing Bodily Harm

[10] On July 23, 2022, while an inmate at the Toronto East Detention Centre (“TEDC”), Mr. Greene and another inmate violently assaulted a third inmate. They punched and kicked him repeatedly over the course of several minutes, including when he was on the ground. Mr. Greene also assaulted him with an apple that was inside a sock. Although the assault was clearly visible on security video, no correctional staff took any action until the assault was over.

[11] The victim of the assault suffered a broken jaw and bruising, cuts and abrasions to his head, face and body.

(iii) Other Assaultive Conduct

(a) Forcible Confinement

[12] On July 11, 2020, Mr. Greene and three other individuals forced a man they had been tracking into a vehicle. As they drove away, the victim managed to escape from the vehicle.

[13] Mr. Greene was charged with robbery, use of an imitation firearm while committing robbery, and kidnapping on the same indictment as the aggravated assault charge. He has admitted the facts outlined above, but has not pleaded guilty to those counts. They remain outstanding, although it is anticipated that they will be withdrawn by the Crown.

(b) Assaults at the TEDC

[14] While at the TEDC, Mr. Greene became involved in an altercation with a correctional officer on October 24, 2022 during which he advanced on him in a threatening manner and kicked him on the leg. On November 5, 2023 and March 25, 2024, he was involved in assaults on other inmates.

B. The Offender

(i) Background

[15] Mr. Greene was born in September 2001. His mother was 17 years old at the time. He and his younger brother were primarily raised by her. His father lived with them when Mr. Greene was young and Mr. Greene witnessed him behaving violently towards his mother. Mr. Greene has a close relationship with his mother and maternal grandparents. He has not seen or spoken to his father in several years.

[16] Mr. Greene grew up in the Thorncliffe Park area of Toronto, which is a socio-economically depressed and racialized community. His mother supported the family by working as a personal support worker and by relying on social assistance. His father did not contribute to the support of the children and the family struggled financially. At one point, they were evicted from their apartment because of his mother’s inability to pay the rent.

[17] Although Thorncliffe Park is a racialized community, most of the population consists of Muslim South Asians and there were few Black families like Mr. Greene’s. Mr. Greene experienced anti-Black racism from other members of the community and was often excluded from activities with other young people and was aware that some of his female peers were not permitted to date him because of his race.

[18] As he grew older, he became accepted into a peer group, although he now views them as having been bad influences. Some of his peers became involved in the criminal justice system and were incarcerated. A close friend of his was murdered.

[19] While in his teens, Mr. Greene was frequently stopped, questioned and searched by the police, who maintained a constant presence in the neighbourhood. On one occasion, a police officer tackled him to the ground. Mr. Greene began to spend time outside of the neighbourhood because of his fear of the police.

(ii) Education

[20] Mr. Greene was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) as a child. He experienced bullying in school, where other students sometimes used racial epithets towards him. As he grew older, he began to become involved in fights. He was often blamed for being the aggressor and believes that this was the result of anti-Black racism. He was expelled from one school in Grade 8. He attended another school after that, but stopped attending after Grade 11 when he became involved in the youth criminal justice system. He obtained his high school diploma while in custody at the TEDC.

(iii) Employment

[21] Through his youth, Mr. Greene assisted his grandfather with construction work, including landscaping, painting and roofing.

[22] Mr. Greene intends to pursue a career as a carpenter and has contacted a union to discuss an apprenticeship.

(iv) Rehabilitative Efforts

[23] While in custody, Mr. Greene obtained a number of certificates from a variety of programs. As noted earlier, he obtained his secondary school diploma. He is also on a waiting list for post-secondary courses.

[24] Mr. Greene also participated in a program called “Inside Out” created by an organization called Urban Rez Solutions. The program is offered to Black inmates and is designed to assist with employment and personal skills. The facilitator of the program wrote a letter describing Mr. Greene in very positive terms.

(v) Youth Record

[25] In December 2019, Mr. Greene was found guilty as a youth of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. The disposition he received included a firearms prohibition, which he was subject to when he committed the aggravated assault.

(vi) Conditions of Presentence Custody

[26] Mr. Greene has been in custody at the TEDC since his arrest, a total of 1044 days. He was initially placed on a maximum security range as part of the now abolished “SAFER” program, which required him to remain in his cell for 22 hours each day. He spent a total of 206 days in this program. According to institutional records, he did not receive the two hours out of his cell that he was entitled to on 66 occasions because of lockdowns.

[27] Mr. Greene spent a total of 16 days in quarantine, where he was again entitled to be out of his cell for two hours each day. This did not occur on 11 occasions because of lockdowns.

[28] For a total of 26 days, Mr. Greene was on the “Stabilization Unit” because of misconduct. He was entitled to two hours out of his cell each day, but did not receive this on 23 occasions because of lockdowns.

[29] The unit Mr. Greene was on was subject to COVID droplet precaution protocols for 25 days, during which Mr. Green was permitted to be out of his cell for 30 minutes each day.

[30] Mr. Greene spent 754 days in the general population, where he was supposed to be permitted to be out of his cell most of the day. While he was there, he was subject to full or partial lockdowns on 98 days.

[31] Mr. Greene spent 565 nights “triple-bunked,” that is, he was one of three inmates sharing a cell designed for two.

[32] Inmates are supposed to be offered an opportunity for fresh air outdoors each day, which is commonly referred to as the “yard.” Mr. Greene’s unit was offered the yard on 27% of the days he was entitled to it. The institutional average is 32%.

[33] Mr. Greene swore an affidavit describing the conditions of his incarceration at the TEDC. He described often having to sleep on the floor of his cell while triple-bunked. On several occasions, lockdowns prevented him from having visits with his family. There was no reliable air conditioning at the institution and it was often hot and uncomfortable during the summer. His evidence was not challenged.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Fundamental Purpose of Sentencing

[34] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that 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 ….” This is to be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of several objectives enumerated in s. 718 (a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence and rehabilitation. As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58, the various objectives “will not necessarily point toward the same sentencing disposition” and that the court must “prioritize and blend the different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.”

[35] While there will rarely be only one possible fit sentence, s. 718.1 of the Code provides that any sentence that is ultimately imposed “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37; R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 30.

B. Applicable Ranges

(i) Aggravated Assault

[36] In R. v. Bellissimo, 2009 ONCA 49, at para. 3, the Court referred to a range of imprisonment for seven to 11 years for “serious gun related offences.” While Bellissimo is a brief endorsement and the exact offence at issue was not mentioned, subsequent decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal clarify that the conduct it applies to includes “aggravated assault involving serious gun violence resulting in injury”: R. v. Johnston, 2021 ONCA 331, at para. 19; R. v. Collins, 2023 ONCA 610, at para. 4; R. v. Jarvis, 2022 ONCA 7, at para. 6. The sentencing cases provided to me by counsel are consistent with this range.

(ii) Assault Causing Bodily Harm

[37] Deterrence and denunciation are “predominating principles” where violent crimes are committed by a person in custody against another person in custody: R. v. McNeil, 2020 ONCA 595, at para. 52.

[38] Crown counsel drew my attention to R. v. O’Loughlin, 2017 ONCA 89, at paras. 18-27, where the Court of Appeal upheld a 20-month sentence for a conviction for assault causing bodily harm committed by one inmate on another. The accused in that case had a lengthy criminal record and was found guilty following a trial. The judgment mentions that a co-accused who also had a lengthy record but pleaded guilty received an 18-month sentence.

[39] A two-year sentence was imposed on an offender with a lengthy criminal record who pleaded guilty to an assault causing bodily harm while in custody in R. v. Napier, [2023] O.J. No. 2102 (C.J.). A sentence of 15 months was imposed for a similar offence in R. v. Daley, 2023 ONSC 2127 after a guilty plea where the offender had an unrelated record.

[40] Having identified the applicable ranges, I must now situate Mr. Greene within them. This requires a consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

C. Aggravating Factors

(i) Use of a Firearm

[41] The fact that a firearm was involved is an aggravating factor. However, I note that the range for aggravated assault earlier is premised on the involvement of a firearm, so this is not a factor that can assist in situating this case within that range.

(ii) Firearms Prohibition

[42] Mr. Greene was subject to a firearms prohibition at the time of the offence. The fact that he chose to not only possess but also use a firearm despite the prohibition is a significant aggravating factor, as is the fact that he has previously been found guilty of a firearms offence.

(iii) Injuries to Victims

[43] The aggravated assault in this case caused serious physical and psychological injuries to the victims. Two of the victims suffered multiple gunshot wounds which necessitated multiple surgeries and lengthy hospital stays. The third victim, while not physically injured, suffered significant psychological harm.

[44] The victim of the assault causing bodily harm also suffered significant injuries, including a broken jaw.

(iv) Home Invasion

[45] The aggravated assault took place in the sanctity of a private dwelling in what was, in essence, a “home invasion.” This is a significant aggravating factor: R. v. Wright (2006), 83 O.R. (3d) 427 (C.A.), at paras. 13-15; R. v. J.S. (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 511 (C.A.), at paras. 32-34. As was observed by Nordheimer J. (as he then was) in R. v. P.H., [2006] O.J. No. 885 (S.C.J.), at para. 73, such offences “strike at the fundamental and natural desire and expectation that every person has, that is, to feel safe and secure in their own homes.”

(v) Other Assaultive Conduct

(a) Forcible Confinement

[46] As summarized earlier, Mr. Greene participated in the forcible confinement of an individual and also engaged in assaultive behaviour while in custody. This evidence is not contested and was put before the court on consent. While I was invited to treat this prior conduct as an aggravating factor, counsel did not specifically address how I should do so.

[47] The forcible confinement was the subject of other charges in the Indictment so is admissible pursuant to s. 725(1)(b.1) of the Criminal Code because the parties have consented to me considering it and Mr. Greene has admitted to having committed the offence. It is therefore appropriate for me to consider it in determining the appropriate sentence and even to in effect sentence him for it: R. v. Howlett (2002), 163 O.A.C. 48 (C.A.), at para. 12. Mr. Greene’s participation in this offence is therefore properly considered as an aggravating factor.

[48] Section 725(2)(a) requires the court to note on the Indictment that the outstanding charges were considered so that no further proceedings can be taken with respect to those charges. I direct that such a notation be made.

(b) Assaults at the TEDC

[49] The situation is different with the assaults at the TEDC. These were not the subject of separate charges, so s. 725(1)(b.1) does not apply. Nor does s. 725(1)(c) because these assaults are not “facts forming part of the circumstances of the offence.” As a result, I may only use this evidence insofar as it is relevant to Mr. Greene’s character and background or risk of re-offending: R. v. Angelillo, 2006 SCC 55, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 728, at paras.27-32; R. v. Edwards (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), at para. 63.

D. Mitigating Factors

(i) Guilty Plea and Remorse

[50] Mr. Greene accepted responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty. In doing so, he relieved the Crown of the burden of prosecuting him and saved the justice system the time and expense of a trial. In a jurisdiction such as this facing a backlog of cases, this is a factor that must be accorded considerable weight.

[51] More importantly, Mr. Greene’s pleas, together with the comments he made to the authors of the Presentence Report and the Enhanced Presentence Report as well as the comments he made when addressing the court at his sentencing hearing, satisfy me that Mr. Greene is remorseful for his actions.

(ii) Youth

[52] Mr. Greene was 18 years old when he committed the aggravated assault and 20 years old when he committed the assault causing bodily harm. It is a well established principle of sentencing that rehabilitation and specific deterrence are the paramount considerations when sentencing a youthful offender and where a sentence of imprisonment is required, it should be as short as is necessary to achieve the relevant sentencing objectives: R. v. Priest (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.); R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361, at para. 78; R. v. Desir, 2021 ONCA 486, at paras. 41-42.

(iii) Social Context

[53] Mr. Greene is a young black man. It is now beyond dispute that the fact that an offender has been the victim of systemic anti-Black racism can be relevant to his or her degree of moral responsibility and is a factor that must be taken into account in determining an appropriate sentence: Morris, at paras. 87-101.

[54] Mr. Greene has experienced anti-Black racism throughout his life. He was raised by a single mother and grew up in a racialized and socio-economically challenged neighbourhood. He witnessed domestic violence within his home as a child. He was subjected to negative peer influences, some of whom were involved in criminal activity. A close friend of his was murdered. He experienced racism at school and while interacting with the police. He ultimately did not finish high school, which limited his career prospects. These are all familiar characteristics shared by many young Black men who come before the court.

[55] I am satisfied that that there is “some connection between the overt and systemic racism … and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue”: Morris, at para. 97. Mr. Greene grew up in poverty and watched his mother struggle financially, which provides some explanation for why he decided to participate in a robbery. It does not excuse his conduct, but it mitigates his degree of responsibility: R. v. Husbands, 2019 ONSC 6824, 451 C.R.R. (2d) 117, at para. 83, aff’d 2024 ONCA 155, 170 O.R. (3d) 486; R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, 421 C.C.C. (3d) 227, at para. 37; R. v. Donison, 2022 ONSC 741, at paras. 37-40.

[56] There is also a connection between the social context evidence and Mr. Greene’s violent conduct. He experienced violence in the home, had peers who engaged in crime, and a close friend of his was murdered. Exposure to violence provides some explanation for why a person may engage in violent conduct: R. v. Handule, 2023 BCSC 1031, at para. 190.

(iv) Family Support

[57] Mr. Greene’s family remains supportive of him. They have provided him with emotional support throughout his time in custody and have made attempts to assist him in finding work when he is released. Many of his family members attended his sentencing hearing. This all bodes well for his rehabilitation.

(v) Conditions of Presentence Custody

[58] While in custody at the TEDC, Mr. Greene was subject to lockdowns on numerous occasions, usually due to staff shortages. While he was supposed to be given access to fresh air every day, this only occurred less than a third of the time. He was triple-bunked more than 50% of the time and often slept on the floor.

[59] Mr. Greene’s experiences are not unique. The conditions at the TEDC have been the subject of repeated judicial criticism over the course of several years. Over seven years ago in R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779, at para. 38, in speaking about the conditions at the TEDC, Forestell J. called it “shocking that detention centres in Toronto are consistently failing to meet minimum standards established by the United Nations in the 1950’s.” [2] See also R. v. Jogiyat, 2024 ONSC 3498, at para. 103-105; R. v. Kerr, 2024 ONSC 1514, at paras. 88-90; R. v. Adam, 2024 ONSC 2180, at paras.18-19; R. v. Zaban, 2024 ONSC 2704, at paras. 23-29; R. v. Bananish, 2024 ONSC 1218, at para. 147; R. v. Shen, 2024 ONSC 1074, at para. 58; R. v. Owusu, 2024 ONSC 671, at para.18; R. v. Dequilla, 2024 ONCJ 227, at paras. 102-103; R. v. Hamilton, 2024 ONSC 2167, at para. 60; R. v. Dolman-Kencher, 2023 ONSC 2752, at paras.58, 84-85; R. v. Pathmanathan, 2023 ONCJ 142, at paras.132-133; R. v. Mohamed, 2023 ONSC 6294, at paras. 44-45; R. v. Codrington, 2023 ONSC 6352, at para. 36; R. v. Gordon, 2023 ONSC 1036, at para. 40; R. v. Smith, 2022 ONSC 3800, at para. 39; R. v. Tago, 2022 ONSC 1253, at para. 31; R. v. Abdullahi, 2022 ONSC 543, at para. 61; R. v. Baugh, 2021 ONSC 8408, at paras.15-18; R. v. Steckley, 2020 ONSC 3410, at para. 39; R. v. Douale, 2018 ONSC 3658, at paras. 46-53; R. v. Hudson, 2019 ONCJ 608, at para. 43.

[60] In R. v. Rajmoolie, 2020 ONCA 791, 155 O.R. (3d) 64, at paras. 21, 45, Lauwers J.A., dissenting, referred to the frequent lockdowns at the TEDC as “deeply worrisome” and the lack of access to fresh air as “inhumane to a marked degree.” [3]

[61] It is now well accepted that the existence of unduly harsh conditions in presentence custody is a relevant factor on sentencing. Reducing a sentence on this basis is often referred to as “Duncan” credit after the decision in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, although in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, at para. 52, the court explained that this is not really a “credit,” but rather a mitigating factor to be considered together with other aggravating and mitigating factors.

[62] However, unlike other collateral consequences which are fact-specific, the existence of unduly harsh conditions of presentence custody is a systemic problem that has been ongoing for several years. Courts have condemned these conditions as being unacceptable on countless occasions. The government’s response to these criticisms has been to do nothing. To ignore the state’s refusal to heed the court’s admonitions risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. As a result, in addition to ensuring proportionality, granting credit for time spent in harsh conditions also serves to communicate the court’s disapprobation of the state’s conduct: R. v. Bernard, 2021 ONSC 5817, at paras. 26-32; R. v. Truong, 2023 ONSC 7518, at para. 54; R. v. Shaikh, 2024 ONSC 774, at paras. 27-30; R. v. Perez, 2024 ONSC 2247, at paras. 45-47; R. v. Williams, 2022 ONSC 3080, at paras. 29-30; R. v. McEwan, 2023 ONSC 1608, at para. 99; R. v. Spicher, 2020 ONCJ 340, at paras. 66-67; R. v. Kongolo, 2022 ONSC 3891, at paras. 82-84; R. v. Hassan, 2023 ONSC 5040, at para. 46; R. v. Ahmed, 2021 ONSC 8157, at para. 42; R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188, at paras. 35-36. Failing to maintain basic standards of treatment of presumptively innocent prisoners is wholly unacceptable, as is ignoring repeated judicial expressions of concern.

[63] Prior to Marshall, a “Duncan” credit was usually awarded based on the number of days spent subject to harsh conditions multiplied by what the court considered to be the appropriate ratio. This type of quantification is permissible as long as it does not skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence or lead to an overemphasis of the mitigating effect of the custodial conditions: Marshall, at para. 53. I do not intend to quantify the mitigating effect of the custodial conditions in this case. For the reasons I have explained, the effect is substantial.

E. Balancing Objectives and Finding an Appropriate Sentence

(i) Balancing

[64] Mr. Greene’s offences are violent and serious. One of them involves the use of a firearm, which are too prevalent in this community and pose a significant threat to its safety. For these reasons, the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given effect.

[65] At the same time, Mr. Greene was barely an adult when he committed these offences. I accept that he is remorseful and I accept that he has good prospects for rehabilitation. While his assaultive behaviour at the TEDC is a cause for concern, I am not prepared to infer that his behaviour while being kept in substandard conditions at the TEDC is indicative of how he will behave in the community.

[66] The challenge in this case is to give proper effect to all of these sentencing principles. An overly long sentence will give full effect to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, but would unduly impede Mr. Greene’s rehabilitation. At the same time, an overly short sentence would encourage rehabilitation, but would fail to give sufficient effect to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

(ii) Aggravated Assault

[67] Having considered all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, I have concluded that a sentence of seven years, which is the lower end of the range established in Bellissimo, is appropriate. While at the lower end of the range, the sentence is nonetheless significant, clearly expresses the court’s condemnation of Mr. Greene’s violent conduct and is long enough to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. At the same time, it promotes Mr. Greene’s rehabilitation, which will protect the public in the long run. The sentence also takes into effect the substandard conditions at the TEDC and the government’s blatant disregard for this court’s repeated condemnation of them.

(iii) Assault Causing Bodily Harm

[68] With respect to the assault causing bodily harm, given the viciousness of the assault, an 18-month sentence would be appropriate. However, in order to give effect to the principle of totality, I will instead impose a sentence of 12 months: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, 487 D.L.R. (4th) 201, at para. 91; R. v. C.B., 2024 ONCA 160, at para. 43.

F. Credit for Presentence Custody

[69] Mr. Greene has been in custody since November 9, 2021, a total of 1044 days. In accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, he is entitled to a credit of one and a half days for each day, for a total of 1566 days, or approximately 51 ½ months, which I am prepared to round up to 52 months. [4]

III. DISPOSITION

A. Sentences

[70] The sentences imposed are as follows:

• Aggravated assault: 7 years;
• Assault causing bodily harm: 1 year, to be served consecutively.

The total sentence is eight years, or 96 months. Mr. Greene is given a credit of 52 months, leaving 44 months, or three years and eight months, left to be served.

B. Ancillary Orders

[71] Pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code, there will be an order that Mr. Greene be prohibited from possessing any of the items described in that section for life.

[72] Pursuant to s. 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Greene is ordered to provide a sample of his DNA for inclusion in the national databank.

Justice P.A. Schreck

Released: September 17, 2024

Footnotes

[1] An abbreviated version of these reasons was delivered orally in court on September 17, 2024. In the event of any inconsistency between those oral reasons and these written reasons, the written reasons should be taken as correct.

[2] Forestell J. was referring to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which was first adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955. The Rules were revised and expanded in 2015 and are now known as the “Nelson Mandela Rules”: A. Gilmour, “The Nelson Mandela Rules: Protecting the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty” (https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/nelson-mandela-rules-protecting-rights-persons-deprived-liberty).

[3] Writing for the majority in Rajmoolie, Benotto J.A. did not comment on the conditions at the TEDC and deferred to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion with respect to the granting of credit for harsh presentence conditions. She declined to admit fresh evidence on the issue.

[4] As is now commonly done in the s. 11(b) Charter jurisprudence, I have converted days to months by treating each month as consisting of 30.417 days in accordance with R. v. Shaikh, 2019 ONCA 895, 148 O.R. (3d) 369, at fn.1.