Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Halton 15-2947 Date: 2017-06-01 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Sean David Lloyd

Before: Justice Stephen D. Brown

Heard on: April 20, 2017

Reasons for Sentence released on: June 1, 2017

Counsel:

• Harutyun Apel, for the Crown
• Brendan Neil, for the accused Sean David Lloyd

Brown J.:

1. Introduction

[1] Sean Lloyd pleaded guilty before me to a charge that on September 20, 2015 he did commit an aggravated assault on Jonathan Forde, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

[2] The plea was entered on October 12, 2016 and a Pre-Sentence Report was ordered. He was to be sentenced on January 11, 2017, but matters were adjourned for various reasons at the request of the defence. On April 20, 2017 I heard sentencing submissions and suggested at the end of the day that I could give oral reasons for sentence that day or put the matter over to June to give written reasons.

[3] The defence requested that sentencing be postponed one last time until June 1, 2017 and I agreed to do so.

[4] This permitted me time to fashion a more coherent decision than simply giving oral reasons at the end of a very long day. It also permitted Mr. Lloyd to make arrangements for what will inevitably be a custodial sentence.

[5] What follows are my reasons.

2. Circumstances of the Offence

[6] An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed as Exhibit 1 on the plea and Mr. Lloyd admitted that they were correct.

[7] Essentially, they indicate that the offender was at a bar called the "Slye Fox" on New Street in Burlington on September 20, 2015. He was drinking but not intoxicated. The victim Jonathan Forde had words with him. As a result of this argument at about 10:40 p.m. the victim spit on the offender and flicked a lit cigarette at him. In response to this, the offender struck the victim several times in the head with a closed fist. This caused an injury to the victim's lip that required stitches. He was transported to the hospital.

[8] Police were called and, after interviewing witnesses, arrested the offender at 10:57 p.m.

[9] He was transported to 30 Division and he gave an inculpatory statement to police.

[10] At 2:20 a.m. the following day police received information from the physician treating Mr. Forde that the victim had bleeding on the brain, a ruptured right eye and a detached lens on his right eye. The doctor advised the police that the victim would lose his right eye.

[11] As a result of this information, the offender was re-arrested for the charge of aggravated assault.

3. Impact on the Victim

[12] Jonathan Forde has suffered significantly as a result of this crime. Mr. Apel filed Mr. Forde's Victim Impact Statement as Exhibit 3 on the sentencing.

[13] The loss of sight in one eye has had a profound impact on Mr. Forde. It has impacted his pre-existing depression and exacerbated it.

[14] He cannot play or enjoy the sports that he once did. He has difficulty crossing the street because of his diminished vision and also riding a bicycle. He bumps into things occasionally. He believes it may negatively impact his ability to drive a motor vehicle. He has lost a significant amount of time off work, approximately six weeks.

[15] This disability also presents problems with his depth perception and he finds that he can no longer do the job he loved, which was framing custom homes. Although he has a diploma in residential design and construction, he has had to take a lower paying job and is unable to fully realize his potential and career goals.

[16] His losses are significant. When I asked counsel for Mr. Lloyd whether a civil action had been commenced he indicated that it had not been to his knowledge. I have no doubt that the victim would be entitled to restitution of perhaps a significant amount, but it is beyond the scope of this Court to assess that and make an appropriate restitution order and none is sought by the Crown.

4. Circumstances of the Offender

[17] Sean Lloyd is presently 22 years of age. He was 20 years old at the time of the offence.

[18] He was born in Liverpool, England. His family immigrated to Canada when he was two years old and the family has resided in Burlington since that time. He lives at home with his parents and his older sister who has completed university. His father is an elevator mechanic and his mother works as a coordinator at a retirement home working with people who suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

[19] His family is pro-social, hardworking and supportive of the offender. While recognizing the seriousness of his conduct and in no way attempting to minimize it, his parents and other individuals who know Mr. Lloyd and have provided character reference letters that state that this offence is out of character from the person that they know.

[20] Mr. Lloyd has no previous criminal record. He has committed no breaches of the terms of his release on this charge.

[21] He has completed high school in Burlington with average grades and had no behavioural problems in school. He attended college for electrical engineering but only completed one semester. He then enrolled in a pre-apprenticeship electrician program that was six months in length and he completed that course. The offender could not find full-time employment in this field and worked at numerous odd jobs. He found full-time work in November of 2016 as a parts delivery person for an elevator company and recently has moved on to a full-time position with a large waste management company.

[22] He is presently engaged and his fiancée is someone that he has known since high school, although their relationship only commenced approximately one year ago. His fiancée Ashia Bak confirmed this and, as stated at page 5 of the Pre-Sentence Report:

She stated that the subject is a very caring and loving person. She stated that she is aware of the offence and was surprised by the actions of her fiancee. Ms. Bak stated that she is studying criminology in university and has good resources to continue helping her fiancee. She stated that she is aware that he has anger management concerns and he has taken a course. Ms. Bak stated that she will continue to support and provide him with all the help she can.

[23] His fiancée attended his sentencing submissions together with her father, as well as the offender's parents.

[24] In the Pre-Sentence Report under the heading of "Substance Use", the author Michael Kirlew states as follows:

The subject reported that he started to drink alcohol and use marijuana at the age of fourteen years old. The subject mentioned that over the years, his alcohol and marijuana use increased however he felt his use was within reason and not an area of concern. The subject described himself as a social drinker. He stated that he was using marijuana on a daily basis.

Mrs. Lloyd reported that she was concerned with the subject's regular use of marijuana and asked him to leave their home. The subject moved out for two weeks. He lived with his fiancee and her parents. Mrs. Lloyd stated that she and her husband informed the subject that if he wanted to return home, he needed to attend treatment for substance abuse. The subject agreed and attended a withdrawal management program.

Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd stated that they were surprised by their son's actions and wanted to make sure that alcohol and drug use are addressed.

The subject stated that after attending the withdrawal management centre for substance abuse, he has reduced his use of marijuana but has not stopped. The subject also stated that he continues to drink alcohol as alcohol was never an area of concern for him.

The subject reported that he admitted himself to Centre of Hope Withdrawal Management Centre and completed a substance abuse program. The subject submitted a letter from the program confirming that he was in their program from November 3, 2016 to November 9, 2016. The subject stated that he attended the program to show his parents that he is able to stop using marijuana. This writer made clear to the subject that reducing his use of marijuana is not stopping. The subject once again acknowledged that he only reduced his use but has not stopped using marijuana. The subject stated that he is willing to take any counselling that the court orders.

The subject wanted this writer to be aware that he was not intoxicated at the time of the offence. He mentioned that he had just started drinking.

[25] Under the heading "Character/Behaviour/Attitude" in the Pre-Sentence Report it states:

The subject presented as polite and cooperative for the purpose of this report. He reported on time and showed a willingness to participate in the interview by being open and honest. The subject stated that it was not his intention to harm the victim however the victim "spat in his face and threw a lit cigarette at him".

The subject described himself as caring, generous, and a very athletic person. He stated that he is respectful of others and does not see himself as a person with anger management issues. He reported that he played soccer at a competitive level until age seventeen and continues to play recreational. Mr. Lloyd also outlined that in the past; the subject has been a volunteer with a project that helped children with special needs. The subject has completed a withdrawal management program.

Mr. Lloyd described the subject as thoroughly sorry, upset and full of remorse. He cited that his son has never been involved in such an incident and it is out of character for him. He sees his son suffering from anxiety. Mr. Lloyd stated that his son has attended anger management counselling since the offence to gain professional support and to help him understand the seriousness of his offence and how his offence could have been avoided…

In regards to peers, the subject reported a lot of the people he called friends were his drinking "buddies". The subject stated since his offence, he has severed relationships with negative friends and spends his time at home or with his fiancee

In regards to the offence, the subject reported he felt badly for what occurred to the victim. He mentioned that he was not intoxicated at the time of the offence. The subject stated that it was not his intention to harm the victim however the victim "spat in his face and threw a lit cigarette at him".

[26] Similarly, the offender expressed his deep remorse in his oral statement to the Court at the sentencing hearing for having committed the offence and the consequences suffered by the victim. He accepts full responsibility for the offence.

5. Position of the Parties

[27] Mr. Apel on behalf of the Crown submits that an appropriate sentence in this case is a period of incarceration in the range of nine to twelve months.

[28] Mr. Neil concedes that a custodial sentence is warranted to address the seriousness of the offence and the consequences to the victim, however he submits that in all the circumstances an appropriate sentence would be an intermittent range of sentence.

[29] Both the Crown and the defence submit that appropriate ancillary orders here would be a 3-year probation order, a DNA order and a s. 109 order for 10 years.

6. Analysis

[30] In R. v. Hamilton, Doherty J.A. described the sentencing task faced by a trial judge. He stated:

The imposition of a fit sentence can be as difficult a task as any faced by a trial judge. That task is particularly difficult where otherwise decent, law-abiding persons commit very serious crimes in circumstances that justifiably attract understanding and empathy.

[31] Both counsel have acknowledged that this is a difficult sentencing.

[32] The principles regarding this sentencing that I have taken into account are set out in section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and read as follows:

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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;

(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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[33] Section 718.1 sets out the proportionality concept as follows and it is a fundamental principle of sentencing: "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."

[34] Also section 718.2 sets out the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors that come into play:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender and...

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

[35] In R. v. Hamilton, supra, Doherty, J.A. provides a helpful framework to approach a sentencing decision. He states:

90 The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence. For example, in drug importation cases, the nature and quantity of the drug involved will impact on the gravity of the offence. Some of the factors which increase the gravity of the offence are set out in s. 718.2(a).

91 The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence - especially the fault component - and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime. In drug importation cases, the offender's role in the importation scheme will be an important consideration in assessing the offender's personal responsibility.

92 In R. v. Priest (1996), Rosenberg J.A. described the proportionality requirement in this way:

The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good [footnotes omitted].

93 Fixing a sentence that is consistent with s. 718.1 is particularly difficult where the gravity of the offence points strongly in one sentencing direction and the culpability of the individual offender points strongly in a very different sentencing direction. The sentencing judge must fashion a disposition from among the limited options available which take both sides of the proportionality inquiry into account. As indicated in Priest, supra, factors, which may accentuate the gravity of the crime, cannot blind the trial judge to factors mitigating personal responsibility. Equally, factors mitigating personal responsibility cannot justify a disposition that unduly minimizes the seriousness of the crime committed.

94 In some circumstances, one side of the proportionality inquiry will figure more prominently in the ultimate disposition than the other. For example, where a young first offender is being sentenced for a number of relatively serious property offences, the sentence imposed will tend to emphasize the features which mitigate the offender's personal culpability rather than those which highlight the gravity of the crimes: R. v. Priest, supra. If, however, that same young offender commits a crime involving serious personal injury to the victim, the "gravity of the offence" component of the proportionality inquiry will be given prominence in determining the ultimate disposition.

95 Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, but it is not the only principle to be considered. Parity, totality, and restraint are also principles which must be engaged when determining the appropriate sentence: Criminal Code, ss. 718.2 (b)-(e). The restraint principle is of particular importance where incarceration is a potential disposition. That principle is reflected in ss. 178.2(d) [sic] and (e):

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

96 The express inclusion of restraint as a principle of sentencing is one of the most significant features of the 1996 Criminal Code amendments 3 statutizing sentencing principles for the first time. As Professor Manson explains:

Restraint means that prison is the sanction of last resort ... Restraint also means that when considering other sanctions, the sentencing court should seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction [footnotes omitted]. 4

[36] Counsel have referred me to several cases, which I have considered and taken into account on this sentencing. In R. v. Panchan, 2013 ONSC 5567, Code J. was sentencing a co-accused of Panchen, Delano Lopes, who was found guilty of a robbery and as a party to an aggravated assault of the victim. Essentially, Ms. Panchan had lured the victim to a location and distracted him when Lopes and an unidentified third man assaulted him. The unidentified male had assaulted the victim with a metal baton striking him in the head several times and causing several cuts to the victim's head resulting in scarring. Lopes had no previous record and was 23 years of age at the time of the commission of the offences. Lopes had strong family support and was gainfully employed. He was convicted after a trial and, thus, did not have the benefit of the mitigating factor that a plea of guilt provides. Mr. Lopes in that case ended up with a sentence of 90 days, which was served intermittently, however Justice Code stated that a one-year sentence would have been the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of that case.

[37] This sentence, however, was reduced to one of six months given the lengthy time that it took to arrive at the sentencing - three years in that case. Credit was also given for pre-trial custody and being on strict bail conditions, so this allowed a reduction to an effective sentence of three months custody. In the case at bar there is no pre-trial custody and there were not onerous bail conditions that the offender had to endure.

[38] In that case, Code J. states at para 34:

The offence of aggravated assault is, by definition, a serious crime of violence requiring emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence. Nevertheless, a wide range of sentences have been imposed, including mid-range reformatory sentences of nine to ten months in less serious cases or in those cases where strong mitigating circumstances exist. Indeed, sentences of ninety days imprisonment have been imposed in some cases of aggravated assault that are not all that dissimilar to the present case. See: R. v. Smart, [2013] O.J. No. 509 (S.C.J.); R. v. Crooks and Bubnic, [2004] O.J. No. 4050 (S.C.J.); R, v, Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677; R. v. Vang and Chanthaboury (1999); R. v. Vargas (1997); R. v. Creighton and Travassos, [1997] O.J. No. 2220 (C.A.).

[39] A further case that I have considered was that of R. v. Gugaruban, [2013] O.J. No. 2525 (OSC). In that case, the offender was a relative of the victim, who had gotten into an argument with him. After a trial, the offender was found guilty. He punched the victim in the face and stomach, and kicked him when he was down. The victim was seriously injured by the assault and had his orbital bone fractured which required surgery to repair. There were no longstanding or lingering effects from the attack, unlike the case at bar, and the victim was supportive of the defendant and wanted to allow him to turn his life around and have him not punished further.

[40] In that case, there were considerations of immigration ramifications regarding the offender. He was a permanent resident, and a sentence of less than six months would have increased his chances of staying in this country that he has lived in since he was four years of age. In the case at bar, I assume Mr. Lloyd is a Canadian citizen because his counsel did not flag any potential immigration consequences for any particular sentences. I am proceeding on the assumption that this is not a factor in this case.

[41] After a careful consideration of the offender's background and the applicable sentencing principles, Justice Goldstein was of the opinion that an appropriate sentence would have been 90 days incarceration and, after deduction of pre-trial custody credits, he was sentenced to a 65-day sentence and one year of probation.

[42] In that case Goldstein, J. reviewed the case law and found that "there is a broad range of sentences that have been imposed by the courts involving aggravated assault" in para. 25 and further stated in para. 32 that "I conclude from this review of the cases that non-custodial or intermittent sentences are available for a first offender convicted of aggravated assault who has an otherwise unblemished record."

[43] Another case provided to me by counsel was R. v. Pulido, 2010 ONSC 3143. That case involved a conviction after a trial. A beer bottle was used in a bar fight and the intent was to hit the victim in the head, but the victim put up his hands to protect himself and the bottle broke and severed a tendon in his hand requiring surgical repair. The issue at trial was that a related injury to the victim's neck was not caused by the accused and he was successful in this regard.

[44] The offender in that case was 35 years of age and was the father of 3 children who he supported. He was involved in a stable relationship and was gainfully employed. He was remorseful for his actions and accepted responsibility. Unlike in the case at bar, that offender had a previous dated record for assault causing bodily harm arising out of similar circumstances of a bar fight.

[45] The offender in that case was sentenced to an intermittent sentence of 90 days with two years probation and the usual ancillary orders.

[46] In R. v. Smart, [2013] O.J. No. 509 (OSC) two offenders were found guilty after a trial of aggravated assault for causing severe injuries to the victim, including a broken jaw. The victim in that case had to have surgery to repair his jaw, which included the insertion of a metal plate. He suffered from permanent scarring and needed extensive dental work. The incident had an emotional impact on him that was lasting.

[47] Mr. Smart was 24 years old at the time of the offence and 27 when sentenced. His Pre-Sentence Report was described as "extremely positive". He was gainfully employed and well liked by his employer. He had no criminal record, but his co-accused Mr. Camilleri did have a criminal record for unrelated offences for which he had received a 75-day intermittent sentence. Camilleri was significantly affected emotionally and psychologically by the offences and was worried that a sentence would impact his employment.

[48] Both offenders had stable roots in the community, supportive families and good work histories. Although the offenders could not be said to be remorseful because there was a trial, they both demonstrated an appreciation of and empathy for the suffering of the victim. Rehabilitation was determined to be a realistic goal for both offenders and the Court found that both of the offenders were not considered to be at a serious risk of re-offending.

[49] Molloy, J. described the attack in that case as unprovoked, two accused on one victim, but that the assault was short in duration and did not involve a weapon.

[50] In that case, the Court recognized that a sentence beyond the intermittent range would thwart the goal that the Court considered to be vitally important, which was to keep both accused employed and functional in the community.

[51] She stated as follows beginning at para. 43:

43 I consider it to be vitally important for these two young men to keep them employed and functional in their community. I do not want to see them get off the productive paths they are now on. Putting them in prison for some period of months would only serve to undermine their future prospects for employment and integration into society, thereby jeopardizing the very real prospects of rehabilitation, for very little gain.

44 I am therefore sentencing both offenders to the longest period of imprisonment possible to enable them the flexibility of maintaining employment, which is 90 days to be served intermittently. That will be followed by the longest period of probation available, which is three years.

45 In my view, the fact of the conviction and the fact that they will have to spend this period of time in prison are sufficient to meet the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation in all of the circumstances. It is also not out of line with other sentences in roughly comparable cases (such as Farah and Camsell ). Most importantly, it is the best option available to respect the goal of rehabilitation for these two youthful offenders.

[52] Finally in R. v. Crooks, [2004] O.J. No. 4050 (OSC) Hill, J. was sentencing two offenders, Crooks and Bubnic, for an aggravated assault that arose when they were involved in an altercation that sought to gain revenge for being kicked out of their hotel room. The group of men that Crooks and Bubnic were involved with attacked the victim who was stabbed and kicked and punched. Although neither accused stabbed the victim, they pleaded guilty on the basis that it was reasonably foreseeable that an aggravated assault was a probable consequence of the retaliation. Bubnic had no prior record and was in school. Crooks, who lived with his mother and supported her, was a good worker but, while on bail, had committed three further crimes and was currently subject to two probation orders. Both accused had been subject to strict release conditions that amounted to over 100 days of court-ordered restraint of liberty.

[53] The victims in that case recovered and the Court recognized the remorse showed by the guilty pleas. Beginning at para. 23 Hill, J. states:

23 Punishable by a maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment, aggravated assault is an indictable offence only and the most serious crime in the assault regime proscribed by ss.266, 267, 268 and 269 of the Criminal Code.

24 The circumstances of the crime to which the offenders pleaded guilty are very serious. The accused, propelled in part by alcohol consumption, engaged in a deliberate and misguided attempt to exact vigilante justice for some perceived or actual wrong to one or more of their friends. Attacking others with weaponry and gang violence offends any civilized notion of human dignity. The savagery of outnumbering the victims with brutality toward them as they were on the ground reflects the cowardly and inhuman aspects often seen in instances of group violence.

25 This said, I accept that the offenders did not hold actual awareness that one of their cohorts had a knife and that its employ would lead to grave injury to one of McGrath's lungs.

26 The aggravating features of the crime are manifest:

(1) serious injuries were occasioned to the victim

(2) the vicious assault transpired in an episode of planned group violence

(3) the motivation of the gang of reinforcements was "to get even"

(4) the offenders themselves directly inflicted violence to McGrath as he lay on the ground in a helpless position virtually defenceless.

27 In the balance, certain mitigating factors fall to be considered:

(1) at the time of the commission of the offence, the offenders were 19 years of age

(2) both were first offenders

(3) in February of 2002, the consumption of alcohol appears to have played a role in the offenders' exercise of judgment to act in a manner inconsistent with their general disposition

(4) both offenders provided inculpatory statements to investigating police officers

(5) each offender spent 2 days in custody prior to judicial interim release

(6) fortuitously, the victim has made a full recovery

(7) the offenders have pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for their part in the aggravated assault

(8) the offenders are remorseful for their criminal conduct

(9) Mr. Bubnic and Mr. Crooks have supportive families and each is at school or work attempting to lead a productive life

(10) in the over 2 1/2 years since their arrest, the offenders have complied with a nightly curfew of 10:00 p.m.

[54] In that case, the Court sentenced Bubnic to 80 days custody to be served intermittently and 12 months of probation. Crooks was sentenced to 90 days and 18 months of probation.

[55] Having regard to the case law submitted and considered by me and the factors to be considered in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, I find that in this case I have considered the following aggravating features of the crime that Mr. Lloyd committed:

1. The victim Mr. Forde suffered serious and what will be a lifelong and life-altering injury that have and will continue to affect his enjoyment of life, his ability to earn a livelihood in his choice of work, and has caused him psychological and emotional harm. More fulsomely, refer to my observations in paragraphs 12 to 16 of these reasons.

[56] Nothing that this sentence can do will be able to correct the harm that Mr. Forde has and will continue to suffer.

[57] The mitigating factors that I have taken into account are the following:

1. Although it does not justify in any way the attack, there was a degree of provocation in that the victim spit on the offender and threw a lit cigarette at him immediately prior to the assault;

2. The nature of the assault was brief, lasting just a few seconds where 3 or 4 punches were thrown by the offender;

3. The offender did not anticipate or want such grievous injury to occur;

4. No weapons were involved;

5. The offender is a youthful first offender and has not offended while on release;

6. He gave an inculpatory statement to the police;

7. He pleaded guilty to the offence and through his counsel indicated to the Crown that this was going to be the case from a very early point;

8. The offender is genuinely remorseful for his conduct and feels true empathy to the victim and the victim's family for the injury caused;

9. The offender has taken anger management and drug counselling on his own and is willing to engage in further counselling as required;

10. The offender is gainfully employed and has been since finishing his education and he is a hard worker as evidenced by the comments in the Pre-Sentence Report and the character reference letters filed in support of him;

11. By all accounts, this was an out-of-character offence;

12. The offender is involved in a stable relationship and is engaged to be married to a woman who is a positive, pro-social woman;

13. The offender has a supportive family and roots in the community;

14. The offender himself has experienced emotional and psychological trauma and is extremely anxious about the outcome of this sentencing and has been since he was charged;

15. The offender has excellent prospects for rehabilitation and, in my view, is unlikely to reoffend.

[58] Balancing all these factors as I must, I find that an appropriate disposition in this case is a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody and 3 years probation. In coming to this decision, I am not unmindful of the violence of this offence and its effects on the victim. I am also acutely aware of the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing for this type of offence.

[59] Specific deterrence does not require a longer sentence than what I am giving. Mr. Lloyd already realizes the serious nature of his conduct, has taken steps towards understanding why this happened and ensuring that nothing similar will ever happen again. A sentence outside of the range of sentences that can be served intermittently would only serve to result in the loss of the offender's full-time employment and impair his chances of full rehabilitation.

[60] That said, because of the serious nature of the assault and the devastating injuries inflicted and the impact on the victim, the longest possible intermittent sentence is appropriate in this case, as well as the longest period of probation.

[61] There will be a s. 109 order for 10 years and, because Aggravated Assault is a primary designated offence, there will be an order authorizing taking samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[62] The terms of the probation order which will be in effect immediately will be as follows:

1. You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

2. Report forthwith and thereafter as required to your probation officer;

3. You are not to associate with or communicate in any way with Jonathan Forde, except through counsel;

4. You are to attend on time at the required institution to serve the custodial portion of your sentence in a drug- and alcohol-free state;

5. Attend and actively participate in such rehabilitative programs for substance abuse as recommended by your probation officer and provide proof of attendance at and successful completion of any such programs;

6. Attend and actively participate in such counselling as recommended by your probation officer and provide proof of attendance and successful completion of any such program;

7. Sign all necessary releases to allow your probation officer to monitor compliance with any counselling/treatment you are directed to attend;

8. Complete 80 hours of community service work at a schedule approved of by your probation officer with the full amount of community service hours to be completed no later than the 15th month of this probation order;

9. For the first year of this order you are to abstain absolutely from the purchase, possession, consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances;

10. You are not to attend upon the premises of the "Slye Fox" establishment at 2-4057 New Street in the City of Burlington.

[63] I may be spoken to about the most appropriate times for Mr. Lloyd to commence his intermittent sentence.

[64] The offender will be given 3 months to pay the Victim Fine Surcharge.

[65] In conclusion, it never fails to sadden me that a few short seconds in two young peoples' lives, and some poor, anger-driven and criminal choices of an offender who had previously lived an exemplary life, can significantly alter both of their lives and impact their futures in the way that it has.

[66] I wish them both well.

Released: June 1, 2017

Signed: "Justice Stephen D. Brown"