Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: July 22, 2025
Docket: COA-24-CR-1404

Before: Michal Fairburn, Grant Trotter, Alison Harvison Young

Between:
His Majesty the King (Respondent)
and
G.D. (Appellant)

Appearances:
Breana Vandebeek, acting as duty counsel for the appellant
Lilly Gates, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: July 17, 2025

On appeal from the sentence imposed on November 13, 2024, by Justice Trevor A. Brown of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant committed serious offences when he was 15 and 16 years of age. The impact on the victims was profound. The appellant was sentenced as a youth when he was 19 years of age. The sentence imposed was an 18-month custody and supervision order with 12 months in open custody, followed by 6 months under supervision in the community. This was to be followed by a period of probation for 18 months.

[2] As the appellant will be 20 years of age on August 2, 2025, and pursuant to s. 93(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, the following provision applies:

When a young person who is committed to custody under paragraph 42(2)(n), (o), (q) or (r) is in a youth custody facility when the young person attains the age of twenty years, the young person shall be transferred to a provincial correctional facility for adults to serve the remainder of the youth sentence, unless the provincial director orders that the young person continue to serve the youth sentence in a youth custody facility.

[3] It is unclear as to whether the provincial director will exercise their discretion to prevent an otherwise mandatory transfer.

[4] The appellant has placed fresh evidence before the court that is impressive in terms of his rehabilitative efforts. Even more impressive is the manner in which he addressed the court – accepting full responsibility for his crimes, demonstrating a clear understanding of the harm that he has caused, and expressing a genuine desire to improve himself and become a positive, contributing member of society.

[5] While nothing in these reasons should be taken as in any way downplaying the seriousness of the offences or the fitness of the sentence imposed, at this point, and in light of all of the fresh evidence, we are of the view that a transfer to an adult correctional facility would materially undermine the tremendous strides made toward rehabilitation.

[6] In the unique circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the interests of justice warrant setting aside the custodial portion of the disposition – specifically the open custody portion – and substituting a term of 8 months. This results in a total custodial disposition of 14 months on count 4. At the same time, we would set aside the 18-month probation order and substitute it with a term of 24 months.

[7] The court wishes to extend its gratitude to counsel for their very helpful submissions.

“Michal Fairburn”
“Grant Trotter”
“Alison Harvison Young”

Publication Bans

[1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

[2] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to ss. 110 and 111 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1.