WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is subject to subsections 110(1) and 111(1) and section 129 of the Act. These provisions read as follows:

110. Identity of offender not to be published. —(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.

111. Identity of victim or witness not to be published. — (1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.

129. No subsequent disclosure. — No person who is given access to a record or to whom information is disclosed under this Act shall disclose that information to any person unless the disclosure is authorized under this Act.

Subsection 138(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with these provisions, states as follows:

138. Offences. — (1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published) . . . or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) . . .

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Date: 2020-01-13

Court File No.: 2111-998-18-YSR2256-00 and 2111-999-18-P1599-00

Ontario Court of Justice

sitting under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

J.L., a young person

Before: Justice D.L. Wolfe

Evidence at trial heard on: April 30, May 1-3, June 3-6, 2019

Accused changed his plea to guilty on: August 16, 2019

Submissions on sentence heard on: September 30, November 4, 2019 and January 13, 2020

Reasons for Sentence released on: January 13, 2020

Counsel:

• Andrew Brown, counsel for the Crown
• Wayne Brooks, counsel for the accused, J.L.

Decision

D.L. WOLFE J.:

Background

[1] This decision is in relation to the tragic consequences of the events of March 14th, 2018. Unfortunately this disposition cannot possibly remedy the physical and emotional suffering caused by the conduct of J.L. that led to the collision that was the focal point of this trial. C.T. should still be alive today. No family should have to face the sudden, violent loss of a child. The many people that were directly injured or traumatized should not have had to bear the consequences of J.L.'s criminal negligence.

[2] Victim impact statements that were presented described the impact of the offence, the physical and emotional harm caused, the property damage and the economic loss suffered. Twelve people read prepared statements. I would like to acknowledge those that filed victim impact statements to assist the court in determining the appropriate sentence. In particular those people that filed on behalf of C.T. who otherwise would not have had a voice during these proceedings and for helping the court to recognize how much potential was lost for her, her family, her friends and the community.

[3] The statements indicate the anguish and daily suffering of those directly injured in the collision and those that lost a cherished family member or friend. Peoples lives have been irrevocably changed for the worst, families have been devastated.

[4] There are many of those injured physically or emotionally here today listening to these reasons and unfortunately this judgment cannot do anything to heal or restore their losses. The task before the court now is to consider the appropriate sentence for J.L.

[5] I have also listened carefully to counsels' submissions and the statement of J.L. I have read the cases submitted, the pre-sentence report, which included his background and input from his mother, and the psychological reports. A s. 34 psychological and psychiatric report has been of assistance to the court to understand more about J.L., and how to address his specific needs and find a sentence that will reduce the risk of re‑offending. These must all be considered with the governing sentencing principles and I will now apply them to craft a sentence appropriate for this offender.

Circumstance of the Offence

[6] J.L. was convicted of Criminal Negligence causing the death of C.T. and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to B.L., D.N. and C.D. He was also found guilty of being a class G1 licence holder operating a motor vehicle while unaccompanied by a qualified driver having four years' experience.

[7] Evidence was heard at his trial on April 30th, May 1st to 3rd, June 3rd to 6th, 2019, at which time the Crown's case was complete. On August 16th, 2019, the date that had been scheduled for argument a finding of guilt was made following the accused changing his plea to guilty on all counts. Sentencing submissions and victim impact statements were heard on September 30th, 2019 with sentencing submissions on that date and November 4th, 2019, and January 13th, 2020.

[8] The events of March 14th, 2018, which started like any other evening were described by 19 witnesses. A group of young people were getting together to socialize and were going to assemble at Decew Falls to make further plans for the evening. Two cars were involved and it was agreed that J.L. as the designated driver, would operate a Mazda 3 motor vehicle owned by his friend. J.L. was 17 years old at the time, and had a G1 driver's licence which restricted him from driving on major highways and required that he be accompanied at all times by a qualified driver. He was accompanied by his friends B.L. and D.N. and they arranged to pick up C.T. from a restaurant where she had just finished her shift as a part-time waitress. The plan was to travel from the south end of St. Catharines to Decew Falls approximately a 15-minute trip by the most direct route. Instead J.L. choose to take a route away from Decew Falls travelling northbound on the 406 highway, west along the QEW highway, and then return towards St. Catharines along roads in a semi-rural area.

[9] Pelham Road is a two-lane roadway divided by a double yellow centreline paved with asphalt, but in some areas the surface was uneven and bumpy. The edges of the roadway were not in pristine condition. It was located in the area of the Niagara Escarpment, very dark with no artificial lighting and with trees along the roadway that blocked natural light. The collision took place on a curve clearly marked with chevron signs and which was preceded by a sign indicating the curve in the road and a cautionary sign recommending 50 kph on the road which was otherwise posted 70 kph. The road in the curve began to incline in the direction the Mazda was travelling.

[10] Witnesses who regularly travelled the area described it as a roadway in which it was not safe to exceed the posted speed limits. Detective Spink had traversed that area travelling at over 70 kph with his emergency lights activated. He was aware of uneven sections of roadway, blind curves, the potential for deer, and considered travelling at over 70 kph involved putting safety at risk.

[11] Significantly, the back seat passengers testified that they repeatedly asked J.L. to slow down, to which he once replied "no man I got this". At times he had been jerking the steering wheel causing the vehicle to enter the oncoming lane of traffic.

[12] While travelling eastbound J.L. entered the curve at a rate of speed in excess of 100 kph, began to lose control, then over corrected which caused his vehicle to spin to the left. He crossed the centreline into the westbound lane thereby presenting the passenger side of the Mazda to the D.'s oncoming pickup truck. Ms. D. had only seconds to respond and applied her brakes.

[13] At that point the unavoidable impact caused the Mazda to turn 180 degrees coming to rest facing away from its previous direction of travel. C.T. lost her life at the scene of the impact. The two rear passengers and driver of the pickup truck were taken to hospital with significant injuries. J.L. suffered broken ribs, a broken arm and a head injury and was hospitalized for a few days.

[14] NRPS officers from the collision reconstruction unit took measurements at the scene, examined the vehicles, drove the route, and calculated the speed of the Mazda and pickup truck. Photographs were taken at the scene of the collision and in the following days. Information was obtained from each of the vehicle's "black box". The excessive speed of the Mazda was determined to be the major cause of the crash.

Sentencing Objectives and Principles

[15] J.L. clearly did not intend the catastrophic consequences of his conduct. Those consequences and the harm he has caused must be considered but they are not the only factor to guide the court in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Youth sentences must take into account the diminished moral blameworthiness of young persons. I am required to consider the heightened vulnerability, lack of maturity and reduced capacity for moral judgment of a young person.

[16] This is a difficult sentencing hearing and it is important in such cases to refer to the principles that the court must follow. I will for my guidance, and to assist members of the public in understanding these proceedings, refer extensively to the requirements of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which set out a distinct regime for sentencing young people.

[17] Section 3(1) of the YCJA says:

3 (1) The following principles apply in this Act:

(a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by

(i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person,

(ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences, and

(iii) supporting the prevention of crime by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour;

(b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following:

(i) rehabilitation and reintegration,

(ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity,

[18] Section 38(1) of the YCJA says:

38(1) The purpose of sentencing under section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the principles set out in section 3 and the following principles:

(a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;

(b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances;

(c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence;

(d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons;

(e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must

(i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1),

(ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and

(iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community; and

(f) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence may have the following objectives:

(i) to denounce unlawful conduct, and

(ii) to deter the young person from committing offences.

Factors to be considered

(3) In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account

(a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence;

(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable;

(c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community;

(d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence;

(e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and

(f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section.

[19] It is rare for a first-time offender to be sentenced to custody. I have considered s. 39 of the Act and find that this was a violent offence which makes a custodial disposition possible. Both counsel have submitted that custody is available and appropriate and I agree. I come to that conclusion having considered and rejected all alternatives to custody, the sentences received by young persons for similar offences, the pre-sentence report and the submissions of counsel. A non-custodial sentence would not adequately address the proportionality principle, specifically the seriousness of the offence and the degree of J.L.'s responsibility.

Position of the Crown

[20] Mr. Brown on behalf of the Crown seeks two years of secure custody followed by probation, a 12-year driving prohibition and a fine in the amount of $500.00 for the Highway Traffic Act offence. The Crown emphasized the choices made by J.L. in driving in breach of the restrictions of his licence and thoroughly reviewed the choices he made to drive in a manner that showed a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety and lives of others. That he drove in a manner that exhibited bravado, intentional risk taking and overconfidence in ability when the circumstances required caution and compliance with the rules of the road.

[21] The maximum sentence available for the offence of criminal negligence causing death, including any probationary period, is 3 years according to the provisions of section 42(2) (n) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The longest driving prohibition in the reported cases was 10 years and most cases imposed a prohibition less than that.

Position of the Defence

[22] Mr. Brooks on behalf of his client seeks eight months' open custody and four months' community supervision followed by two years of probation and a three-year driving prohibition. The defence points out that many of the cases provided for sentencing have distinguishable features and that J.L. has considerable remorse for what happened.

Case law and range of sentence

[23] The Supreme Court of Canada has observed, "Sentencing is an inherently individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offence and similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction."

[24] Counsel have attempted to provide the court with previous decisions as a guide to the appropriate range of sentence. The cases cited by the Crown that resulted in custody often included aggravating factors that are not present in the case before me. Such factors as driving while impaired, driving in a stolen car, leading police in a high speed chase, disobeying stop signs, or intentionally causing an accident, and being unrepentant and not showing remorse.

[25] I am also mindful that many of the cases were reported before the 2012 amendments to the YCJA that added s. 38(2) (f). Previously, denunciation and specific deterrence were not principles of youth sentencing; however, those amendments allow that the court include in sentencing considerations the denouncing of unlawful conduct and deterring the young person from committing offences.

[26] The defence has filed a book of authorities in which many of the cases deal with dangerous driving and are therefore of limited value to the case before me which involves the more serious offence of criminal negligence.

[27] Although the YCJA specifies that the sentence should be similar to those in the same region, there were only a few cases submitted from the Province of Ontario and so counsel submitted cases from across Canada. They included sentences as low as 60 days open custody to two years custody.

[28] In evaluating the cases relied upon by counsel it is clear that many of them involved drivers who were under the influence of alcohol. In his review of the range of sentences available for adult offenders Clayton Ruby makes the following observation "… the wide variety of fact situations giving rise to criminal negligence causing death make it difficult to establish a range … Where alcohol has been involved and there has been a deliberate endangerment of the public, sentences have increased in severity." J.L. was not under the influence of alcohol and I must take that into account in considering the sentences imposed on offenders which included that aggravating factor.

[29] The Ontario Court of Appeal in the context of dealing with adult offenders has set out guidelines that are of assistance in particular with respect to whether there exists a range of sentence and identifying some of the possible aggravating factors for sentencing.

[30] In the Lam decision, the judge observed after a trial that that case was "one of the most extreme examples of both a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons in the operation of a motor vehicle". Because it was an adult sentence the court considered that general deterrence was a primary sentencing goal, something that of course is not applicable to a youth sentence as is the case before me. The important principle from this case however is expressed at paragraph 9 where the court stated "as a result of the many factual possibilities in criminal negligence causing death cases, there is no set range of sentence for this offence." The court went on to list aggravating factors including the consumption of alcohol or drugs and "multiple deaths, racing, reckless driving for a lengthy period of time, a lengthy criminal record, a bad driving record, flight from police, and leaving the scene of the accident." I note that none of those aggravating features were present in J.L.'s conduct other than the reckless driving for an extended period of time.

Guilty plea

[31] A guilty plea is considered an indication of remorse and contrition which suggests good prospects for rehabilitation. Pleas have been recognized as deserving of a reduction in penalty for that reason, and because they save court resources and allow witnesses to avoid the inconvenience and, in some cases, the distress of having to testify in court.

[32] The pre-sentence report indicates that J.L. was considering a plea at an early stage in these proceedings. He was persuaded otherwise on the advice of his mother and because his memory problems made him unsure of the circumstances of the offence. J.L.'s plea was entered after 19 witnesses testified over the course of seven days of evidence and on the day that submissions were to be made in a situation where the evidence was overwhelming. I am therefore not able to give the plea much weight as a mitigating factor. J.L.'s guilty plea does still reflect positively as an indication of his remorse and taking responsibility for his actions.

Mitigating Factors

[33] There are several mitigating factors including:

• He is a youthful first-time offender.
• He is genuinely remorseful as is indicated by his plea, his pre-sentence report, his statement in court prior to being sentenced and the psychological and psychiatric reports.
• The content of the pre-sentence report is overall positive.
• He is motivated to be a contributing member of society and there is every reason to believe that he can be successful.

Medical reports

[34] Dr. Donald Chew prepared a neurological services report dated August 28th, 2019 in which he concludes in part:

"There seems to be little doubt of a serious head injury given the location of the scar in the right temporal region but how much and where the brain has sustained injury is not clear. … symptoms … may persist in vary degree for years." Those self reported symptoms "related to memory, concentration, periodic slurred speech and problems with sleeping. Other issues have included light sensitivity and poor depth perception."

[35] Psychologist E. Rachel Skerrett testified at the sentencing hearing and prepared a report dated September 20th, 2019. Her evidence was that J.L.'s "acquired brain injury and trauma-related blunted affect impact his presentation. He continues to suffer from relational, academic and occupational impairments as a result of the subject accident."

[36] Ms. Skerrett's November 12th, 2018 report states that his symptoms are concerning and that he is likely minimizing the extent of his symptoms. Her testing suggested that he was "suffering from very high levels of distress and acute post-traumatic stress as well as significant depression".

[37] A psychological assessment report was prepared by Dr. Jeffery Wong. It confirms his expressions of remorse, emotional and mental trauma that continues, and describes him as presenting "a low risk for further involvement in law breaking activity"

[38] A psychiatric assessment report was prepared by Dr. Rebecca Chauhan. It reported a diagnosis of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to a Traumatic Brain Injury likely acquired as a result of the collision. He was further diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with anxiety. The report concluded that he was at Low risk for both violent and general recidivism.

Aggravating factors

[39] The aggravating factors are found in the conduct that led to the offences before the court:

• He was not fully licensed but chose to drive anyway without the guidance of an experienced driver.
• He disregarded his mother's caution not to continue to drive outside the boundaries of his licence.
• He drove at excessive speed in a dark area with no artificial lighting, on a winding, two lane roadway with uneven elevations, and narrow shoulders with in places uneven asphalt.
• He was at times jerking the steering wheel steering the vehicle into the lane for oncoming traffic.
• He was asked by passengers to slow down and did not heed their request.
• He had driven the same vehicle in the same area on previous occasions and, as was indicated by his text communications, was aware of the hazards.
• He chose to drive that route for the experience, and in doing so went out of his way. As the Crown described it: "he caused the risk, he knew the risk, he embraced the risk".
• His actions caused the death of C.T.
• His actions caused serious and ongoing personal injuries to three people.

Prospects for rehabilitation

[40] There are several things of note that suggest a strong likelihood of successful rehabilitation:

• He has no prior criminal record.
• He has been living with his mother who is supportive of him and with whom he has a good relationship.
• He has a stable and supportive extended family and support in the community.
• He has consistently been employed.
• He has graduated high school, completed a college course and is goal orientated to continue his education and work in the electrical field
• He has available to him further education and work opportunities.
• He has complied with his bail conditions, and there is no indication that he would not comply with community supervision.
• He was referred for trauma and post traumatic stress disorder treatment and has been regularly participating in therapy. He has received approval to attend the Brain Train program and meets with a support worker twice per week.

[41] The probation officer writing the pre-sentence report is of the opinion that J.L. is unlikely to re-offend. Whatever sentence is imposed he has and will continue to suffer as a result of his actions. J.L., in addition to being physically injured himself, mourns the loss of his girlfriend and the relationship that they had. To quote the probation officer:

J. appears to have suffered significantly from his choices. He has lost many friends, reportedly struggles with memory loss, is being treated for Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, is the defendant in a civil suit, and will have to live with the guilt that his actions had on Miss C.T. Nonetheless, J. is not the victim in this matter. The injuries and trauma experienced by the four survivors of the accident will likely impact them for the remainder of their lives. The devastation and heartbreak Ms. C.T.'s family likely continues to go through is unimaginable.

Level of custody

[42] By all accounts J.L. is unlikely to engage in the same kind of driving behaviour in the future. It is a principle of sentencing that he is to receive the least restrictive sentence available that meets the other requirements of sentencing. He is being sentenced for very serious offences however, there is nothing about his circumstances or the circumstances of the offence that suggests he would pose a threat to the safety of other young persons in custody or to members of the community. The various reports filed with the court indicate that J.L. would benefit from a wide range of services that are available in the community or an open custody setting. The psychologist he has been seeing on a regular basis indicated her services would not be available to him in a closed custody setting. It would be in the interests of society that he continue to have access to as many programs as possible. He should therefore be placed in an open custody facility.

[43] Within the range of sentence submitted by counsel, J.L. would still have the remainder of a custodial sentence to serve at the time of his 20th birthday. He would at that time typically be transferred to a provincial correctional facility for adults pursuant to section 93 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act unless the provincial director applies discretion and orders that he remain in a youth custody facility. That is of concern given the findings contained in the Psychiatric report that:

J.L. would be vulnerable in an adult correctional facility as a result of his age, mild neurocognitive disorder, and mental health symptoms. If his sentence includes a period in custody, it will be important that placement takes into consideration his need for ongoing therapy and cognitive rehabilitation.

The Provincial Director in the application of discretion will have the benefit of the pre-sentence report and s. 34 reports for guidance.

Sentence

[44] The text messages sent by J.L. demonstrate that he was aware of the potential dangers of driving on rural roads and yet he chose to drive at excessive speeds. His driving went beyond poor judgement and an overconfidence in his driving capabilities. He took inordinate risks in an attempt to show off and impress or thrill his passengers. His intentional risk taking, the conduct that was clearly dangerous and the harm caused requires a custodial sentence to hold him accountable.

[45] In determining an appropriate sentence, I have considered the foreseeable harm that was caused to the victims, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and how they relate to the purposes and principles of youth sentencing, the pre-sentence report, the psychological reports, the relevant case law and the submissions of counsel. His level of moral blameworthiness is high. He made wilful deliberate decisions to engage in a manner of driving that showed a wanton and reckless disregard for safety. The proportionality principle requires a significant custodial sentence.

[46] For the offence of criminal negligence causing the death of C.T., J.L. is sentenced to 18 months.

You are ordered to serve 12 months in custody to be followed by 6 months to be served under supervision in the community subject to conditions.

If you breach any of the conditions while you are under supervision in the community, you may be brought back into custody and required to serve the rest of the second period in custody as well.

You should also be aware that, under other provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a court could require you to serve the second period in custody as well.

The periods in custody and under supervision in the community may be changed if you are or become subject to another sentence.

[47] You will then be subject to a 12-month period of probation to monitor your progress in the community. In addition to the statutory terms you will be required to:

• Report within two working days of your release from custody to a Youth Worker at 301 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, and thereafter as directed by your Youth Worker.
• Reside at an address approved of by your Youth Worker and do not change that address without the prior approval of your Youth Worker.
• Attend school or seek and maintain gainful employment. Provide proof of school attendance and/or employment to your Youth Worker upon their request.
• Attend counselling as directed by your Youth Worker and continue to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. Provide proof of such counselling upon request and sign any releases necessary for the Youth Worker to verify such counselling.
• Do not have any contact, directly or indirectly, with D.N., B.L., C.D., and T.D., except for the purpose of conducting or defending civil court proceedings.
• Do not attend within 50 metres of D.N., B.L., C.D., and T.D., and do not be within 50 metres of where they live, work, go to school; except for attendance at Court.
• Do not have any contact, directly or indirectly, with the immediate family of C.T., except for the purpose of conducting or defending civil court proceedings.
• Do not attend within 50 metres of the immediate family of C.T., and do not be within 50 metres of where they live, work, or go to school; except for attendance at Court.
• Do not be in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle.
• Complete 100 hours of Community Service, to be completed at a rate and schedule determined by your Youth Worker.

In your Psychiatric report it indicates that "he wants to prevent this type of accident from happening to other youth by talking to students at school around safe driving". If it can be arranged for a youthful offender, it would potentially be a cathartic experience for J.L. and of great benefit to the community if this time could involve delivering a message to other young people about the dangers of your conduct either through speaking at schools or the creation of an educational video since you currently are involved in creating internet videos.

[48] For each of the three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to B.L., D.N. and C.D., J.L. will be sentenced to 9 months consisting of 6 months' custody and 3 months' supervision in the community. Those sentences will be concurrent to each other and concurrent to the 18-month sentence.

[49] For being a Class G1 licence holder operating a motor vehicle while unaccompanied by a qualified driver having four years' experience, J.L. is required to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00. For much of his life J.L. has maintained employment and I am confident of his ability in the future to pay a fine. Taking into account the custodial sentence I have imposed he will have three years in which to pay the fine.

DNA

[50] This is a secondary designated offence for DNA. I have considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact that this order would have on J.L.'s privacy and security of the person. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make this order.

[51] I order that J.L. provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.

Driving prohibition

[52] The offence of criminal negligence causing death allows for a discretionary driving prohibition. The ability to drive a motor vehicle is in many ways a necessity in North America and qualifying for a licence is a rite of passage for many young people. The Province of Ontario regulates the privilege of driving. J.L., by his driving, showed a disregard for the rules established for novice probationary drivers. His manner of driving showed a disregard for rules of the road and safety that led to loss of life and serious personal injuries. J.L. has not driven for the 22 months since his offence and will not be able to drive during the custodial period of this sentence. Accountability includes assessing whether the sentence will ensure his rehabilitation and reintegration into society and I find that an overly lengthy additional prohibition period would not meet those goals. Therefore, I am prohibiting him from operating a motor vehicle for a period of 6 years commencing on the date he completes the custodial portion of his sentence.

[53] Medical and physical limitations are outlined in the Psychiatric report at page 24 as follows: "J. has suffered neurocognitive changes that may make it unsafe for him to drive due to ongoing difficulties with balance, disorientation and depth perception." There is no indication whether those difficulties are permanent or something from which over time or with treatment he will recover. Given the length of the prohibition that I have already imposed and on the understanding after his prohibition has expired that he will have to submit to written and road tests to be licensed, I decline to extend the prohibition beyond what is appropriate for these offences.

Weapons prohibition

[54] The criminal offences for which J.L. has been found guilty include a mandatory firearms prohibition. Under section 51(1) of the YCJA you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for 5 years.

[55] The section 34 reports and pre sentence report will be forwarded to his custodial facility and supervisor.

[56] I will make the recommendation that if he is transferred to an adult facility that he be allowed to serve his sentence at St. Lawrence Valley or other facility that can meet his needs as described in his PSR and section 34 reports.

[57] J.L., I hope that you are able to complete this sentence successfully. There would be consequences for a breach of any of the orders imposed today, which could include facing charges and, if convicted, a period of time in custody. I note that you have plans to be a contributing member of society and hope that you will be able to redeem yourself as you expressed in your pre-sentence report.

Released: January 13, 2020

Signed: Justice D. L. Wolfe