Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2021 12 22 Court File No.: Toronto 4811-21-15004563

Between:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

ASHTON GRAY

Before: Justice André Chamberlain

Heard on: November 12, 2021 Written Reasons for Judgment released on: December 22, 2021

Counsel: Alexander Merenda and Corie Langdon...................................... counsel for the Crown Gary J. Partington.............................................. counsel for the defendant Ashton Gray

Chamberlain J.:

[1] Ashton Gray, you were previously sentenced by me to a conditional sentence of 9 months on August 16, 2021, on four counts of mischief and one count of assault. You have now pled guilty before me on last Friday, November 12, to two new offences: a mischief charge for throwing a brick and damaging the plexiglass protecting the opening of a religious “grotto” containing a statue of a holy icon to the roman catholic religion at the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish which is located in the Bathurst and Queen St. area of Toronto. Then on August 23, 2021, you returned to that same church and this time you brought tiki torches, and you placed one in the laneway at the side of the church between the brick and a natural gas line, and then one or more at the front gate of the church office. I am told by Mr. Merenda that you caused about $500 damage between the two incidents.

[2] I was informed by your counsel that some members of the public intervened when they noticed what you were doing with the tiki torches and that you stopped your actions at that point. It appears that no significant damage came from that event. Your counsel tells me that this is the reason the Crown consented to your plea to the lessor and included offence of possession of an incendiary device rather than the original arson charge that was laid. The Crown neither objected nor responded to that comment so I accept that.

[3] You also agreed that these actions resulted in a breach of the conditional sentence I imposed on August 16, 2021. This means that you committed these offences while you were serving the sentence that I agreed to have you serve in the community with some conditions, mostly focused on rehabilitation and the protection of previous victims. I did not impose conditions as are often typical of conditional sentences such as a house arrest and curfew, in recognition of your mental health status and the impact of being homeless at the time of sentencing.

Your Criminal Record and Past Offences

[4] Your criminal record, especially over the last few years, tells the story of a series of offences where you express your frustration with people, institutions, things, or places with either violence, threats of violence, or damage to property as well as a large number of administrative offences, mostly failing to comply with probation.

[5] When I sentenced you in August, it was because of an incident on July 5, 2021, where you were at your aunt’s building at 295 Shuter, there was a dispute with the security guard. You told me that you had needed to use a washroom. I fully understood your predicament. During the pandemic with so many public buildings and businesses shut down, and those who remained open following strict infection protocols, access to public washrooms was severely limited if not darn near impossible to find.

[6] You became quite aggressive with the security guard, locked yourself in the lobby vestibule, defecated on the floor, and then covered yourself and the room in your feces. You then activated the sprinkler system in that room. The Emergency Task Force (ETF) had to be called to get you out of there. Residents were not able to enter through the main entrance and the estimated damage was about $15,000.

[7] You were taken to hospital and then returned to the station once medically cleared. At the station, in one of the holding cells on the next day, you stuffed the toilet and caused the room to flood and then you defecated in that room as well.

[8] I don’t intend to go through every offence on your record in detail, but there are notable entries I want to highlight: You were sentenced on November 18, 2019, to mischief and assault police. In your own words at the beginning of the hearing, you stated: “This time I’m here, I tried to go to the church and they wouldn’t let me in, so I threw a cross through the door window and I broke it because they stopped me from getting to God [1].”

[9] I read the bail transcripts [2] where your record was reviewed with a little more detail. In March 2020 you were convicted of uttering threats for threatening to rape a Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice all because she wanted you to see a psychiatrist over the lunch hour to be assessed to make sure you understood what was going on in court.

[10] In January of 2020 you were convicted of threatening nurses at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC) because they did not give you your medication when you demanded.

[11] I also recall that when I ordered a psychiatric assessment in July of this year, which you had opposed, you stood on your chair and set off the sprinkler in your cell at the TSDC, seemingly in protest to my ruling.

[12] In essence, there are times when things don’t go your way and you feel justified in committing some fairly serious acts in defiance or protest.

Crown Position on Sentencing:

[13] The Crown seeks for me to collapse the conditional sentence, meaning they want me to order that you serve the remainder of your conditional sentence in custody. At this point, you have served some 97 days on that sentence. You had served some 8 days before you were arrested, and so a rough total means that you would serve close to 165 further days in custody just on the conditional sentence alone, should I accept the Crown’s recommendation. I note that the final calculation would be up to the correctional institution, once I pass sentence.

[14] The Crown also asks that I impose a further 6 to 9 months of jail on top of the collapsed sentence for the two new charges you have pled to last week: Mischief to property, specifically in this case, a religious building or structure, motivated by prejudice, bias, or hate, for the breaking of the plexiglass protecting the religious icon in the “grotto.” You also pled guilty to possession of an incendiary device, the tiki torches which you appeared to possess to burn down the St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish.

[15] The Crown argues that the collapse of the conditional sentence is the default and argues that it is justified in this case because you were out barely 3 days when you committed the first mischief offence. It also points to the potential risk to the public and possible catastrophic consequences had you been the least bit successful in your attempt to burn that church down.

[16] The Crown argues I must impose a stiff sentence to make it clear that this behaviour will not be tolerated, and that this message is for the community as well, to let them know the courts will not tolerate vigilante justice, as you claim to have done in light of your motivation for these crimes towards the church. I will address more about that motivation and those feelings about the church later in my reasons.

[17] But the Crown also suggests a stiff sentence will make you think twice about committing such acts again and perhaps deter you from targeting religious institutions again. Relying on your previous conviction for mischief against the church from November of 2019, the Crown argues that if the message about violence towards the church didn’t get through on that sentence, then I must increase the sentence to make the message clear. In that case you received a 66 day sentence in light of credit for 9 days of pre-trial custody and 2 years of probation. I should note, you were also charged with assault peace officer on two counts at that time as well.

[18] Ultimately, the Crown suggests that previous courts, including me in sentencing you last August, have been lenient and given you breaks, but that your criminal behaviour has pretty much been uninterrupted for almost a decade, where seemingly within days to weeks of being released from one jail sentence, you commit other similar serious offences.

Defence Position on Sentencing

[19] Mr. Partington and you in your own statement remind me that you are a 33 year old Mi’kmaq, black, and transgender person from Nova Scotia. You inherit your Mi’kmaq heritage from your mother, and your father was black. You were placed into the care of child services at the age of 12 because of the unfortunate addiction of both your parents. You spent much of your youth in group homes and I note that many of the markers of colonialism and racism have been factors in your life, leading to poverty, homelessness, repeated conflicts with the law, and no doubt you have been the victim of much bias and prejudice yourself as a black, indigenous, transgender person.

[20] You have also been diagnosed with a bi-polar disorder but do have some contact with a Dr. Sabota at St. Stephen’s, a local agency that does wonderful work with many of the most vulnerable population, which, with your background and experience, makes you among the most vulnerable. Since being in custody, your counsel also tells me that you have been in touch with the COTA, a community-based organization that has been supporting adults with mental health and cognitive challenges. He says that they may be able to assist you with stable housing. You are also receiving some funds from the Ontario Disability Support Program. (ODSP)

[21] With respect to the offences themselves, Mr. Partington argues that this was a difficult summer for you, as it was for many in the Indigenous community. With the first announcement of the discovery of remains of some 215 children, some as young as 3 years old, on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia, members of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation announced to the world what many of us in the Indigenous communities already knew: that many more children died than was previously believed, and that there were unmarked graves on this and probably many more sites of Indian residential schools.

[22] You counsel points to the outcry in the community and the rhetoric of some prominent Canadians such as Gerald Butts, former principal secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada, who, as a private citizen no long employed by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Tweeted among other comments on the issue, in response to the condemnation by some of the burning of churches seemingly in response to the discovery of these innocent children’s bodies: “But I was an altar boy in a small Atlantic Canadian parish in the early 1980’s. I can understand why someone would want to burn down a church, though I do not condone it.” [3]

[23] Mr. Partington suggests that your own state of mind was influenced by these and other reports and that you got “all fired up” and decided to act in retribution. He points out that in the end, the damage was pretty insignificant, damaging only the plexiglass of the “grotto” and not the statue of the icon itself. And he told me how ultimately you were dissuaded from your intention to burn that church down by passersby who intervened.

[24] He points out that you were vulnerable and susceptible, and as a result became “fired up” to the misplaced attempts to support the Indigenous community. He suggests that I temper justice with mercy in your case, and that a total sentence in the 3 to 6 months range, with credit for time served be sufficient and I order you to continue to serve the remainder of your conditional sentence in the community with more conditions, to make it absolutely clear to you, that any further serious breach would not be tolerated.

[25] Mr. Gray, you have admitted that you did not intend to harm any person with your actions, you merely sought a place to vent your anger and frustration. Though you clearly had a bone to pick with the catholic church, I do tend to accept that you had no specific intent that any person be harmed.

The Impact of Residential Schools

[26] Murray Sinclair is a former member of the Canadian Senate and First Nations lawyer who served as chairman of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Truth and Reconciliation Commission or TRC) which published its report in 2015. He previously served as a judge in Manitoba from 1988 to 2009, being the first Indigenous judge appointed in the province. He is a well-respected leader in Canada and is widely admired in the general population, and if you can imagine, even more so within the Indigenous community, for having been a leader in moving us towards reconciliation with his work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in addressing the harm done in Canadian Indian residential schools.

[27] In the Preface to the Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he wrote:

But, shaming and pointing out wrongdoing were not the purpose of the Commission’s mandate. Ultimately, the Commission’s focus on truth determination was intended to lay the foundation for the important question of reconciliation. Now that we know about residential schools and their legacy, what do we do about it?

Getting to the truth was hard, but getting to reconciliation will be harder. It requires that the paternalistic and racist foundations of the residential school system be rejected as the basis for an ongoing relationship. Reconciliation requires that a new vision, based on a commitment to mutual respect, be developed. It also requires an understanding that the most harmful impacts of residential schools have been the loss of pride and self-respect of Aboriginal people, and the lack of respect that non-Aboriginal people have been raised to have for their Aboriginal neighbours. Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered. This summary is intended to be the initial reference point in that important discussion. Reconciliation will take some time. [4]

[28] In the words of a prominent Chief from Canada:

“The most glaring blemish on the Canadian historic record relates to our treatment of the First Nations that lived here at the time of colonization. . . . ‘Indianness’ was not to be tolerated, rather it must be eliminated. In the buzz-word of the day, assimilation; in the language of the 21st Century, cultural genocide.”

[29] This chief said it was “the worst stain on Canada’s human rights record.”

[30] Those were the words of the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverly McLaughlin, in a speech she made at a conference on May 28, 2015. At the time, she was the highest ranking Canadian official to use the word genocide and it was seen as ground breaking. Today, no one but the ignorant or otherwise uninformed would quibble with that term in the context of Canada’s treatment of its Indigenous population.

The Developments of this Past Summer.

[31] This summer was a difficult one for many Indigenous people in this country. I recognized the pain many faced as the media was flooded with the discovery of thousands of unmarked or mass graves of children who died while in residential schools. We as indigenous people have long known about these lost and missing children. Witness after witness came forward at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission testifying to the deaths of many children in the Indian Residential Schools. Some were indeed buried in graves with markers, but in later years, officials from the churches and organizations removed the markers.

[32] There were also many stories through the witnesses of children who died of abuse, violence, malnutrition, and disease who were buried in unmarked graves. Some of these deaths were not reported to authorities, families or communities, for what can only be a cover up for those responsible. Survivors testified about being awaken in the middle of the night to dig graves for their cohorts. With tales of abuse, neglect, unchecked diseases, malnutrition, violence, and murder perpetrated on these innocent children who were taken from their communities, their families, and denied the basic care and comforts afforded the rest of Canadian society being widely testified to by the survivors, the discovery came as no surprise to most of us in the Indigenous community.

[33] There were also revelations over the summer about the action of the Catholic entities in meeting their commitment to Indigenous people arising from the settlement of a lawsuit from the Indian Residential School system. A Class Action resulted in a settlement agreement in 2006. The “Catholic entities” in the settlement agreed to three obligations:

(1) to pay $29 million to the now-closed Aboriginal Healing Foundation; (2) to provide in-kind services with a value of $25 million over ten years; (3) to use their “best efforts throughout the seven year period following the day after the coming into force of settlement agreement to raise $25,000,000 through a Canada-Wide campaign for healing and reconciliation for former IRS students and their families and communities.”

[34] The Catholic fundraising campaign, called “Moving Forward Together”, ultimately raised only $3.7 million. Since some of the financial obligations of the Anglican and United Churches under this settlement were proportional to the outcome of the Catholic campaign, the failure of the campaign reduced those obligations by more than $3 million. [5]

[35] Meanwhile, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, (CBC News) posted the following story on June 30, 2021, in light of the public’s newly discovered awareness of the Catholic Church’s failed efforts at fundraising to meet its legal obligations to the victims of residential schools impacted by the settlement, estimated to be close to 86,000 survivors:

A growing chorus across Canada is demanding the Catholic Church pay the full $25 million it once promised to residential school survivors — saying it's shameful for the money to remain unpaid while tens of millions are spent on elaborate church buildings.

CBC News has learned of a $17-million fundraising campaign currently underway for cathedral renovations and new construction in the Archdiocese of Regina. That's in addition to a $16-million shrine/church that opened last year in Canmore, Alta., the $28.5-million cathedral built in Saskatoon less than a decade ago and other capital projects across the country.

[36] These are just some of the reasons there is very legitimate anger and frustration with the catholic church. It is easy to understand the rage and frustration many Indigenous people feel about the church. They are one of the few remaining entities involved in these settlements who has yet to make a formal apology for their role in the Indian Residential Schools.

[37] All this, of course, completely ignores the cultural genocide that was targeting Indigenous Peoples throughout this period of assimilation and eradication of Indigenous culture, traditions, lifestyle and people. The means to achieve that end specifically targeted Indigenous children in the Indian residential schools by among others, the catholic church. These were children who were stolen from their families and communities; children who were robbed of their language, their culture and their traditions. Children who were harmed, tortured and killed by violence, by neglect, by unchecked diseases, by malnutrition, and by hatred.

[38] We live with the legacy of that pain every day and we see it every day. Let us remember that many of the people coming through the Gladue court, are a legacy of those actions. Those murdered and missing children were their ancestors. They are the survivors and the progeny of the children who survived residential schools, the children who witnessed those deaths and disappearances. They are the children and grandchildren of the people who were submitted to those same horrors, but who survived.

[39] The anger is real, and this summer that anger and rage fueled a number of reactions, some positive, and some downright destructive to the cause of reconciliation. And that brings us to the response of some in the community to that anger and rage.

The Response from the Leaders in the Indigenous Community

[40] In the developments over the summer following the discovery of hundreds and later thousands of unmarked graves of children who died in residential schools, protests erupted all over the country. Many marches and protests were peaceful vigils, but a few erupted into more mischievous actions by participants. Fires erupted in a few churches, mostly out west, and one event of note, a protest before the Manitoba legislature on Canada Day led to two statues being torn down and vandalized, by protesters.

[41] Murray Sinclair, the chairman of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Truth and Reconciliation Commission or TRC) made the following statement on Facebook on July 1, 2021, in relation to the toppling of two statues at the Manitoba legislature:

I am not at all impressed by the acts of destruction such as this. The people who commit these acts and those who condone them, need to understand how much they set back any chance of moving the dialogue on changing the bad relationship we have, forward(sp?) do you really think this is going to help? Of course you don't. That's not why you did it. You may have been instigated by those who want nothing to do with changing the relationship. You may have been instigated by people bent on making you look bad. You may have easily acted to do this because of the anger you feel and some sort of sense of getting even. I feel no pride in any of you who did this. [6]

Vigilante Justice

[42] But justified anger and rage, no matter how warranted it is, does not justify violent actions against any particular church or parish or any other bad actor, no matter how severe their actions may have been. Justice Moldaver, of the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paragraph 58, addressed the issue of vigilante violence in sentencing a victim, but the statement on the law generally is fitting for this case:

58 That said, this particular collateral consequence should only be considered to a limited extent. Giving too much weight to vigilante violence at sentencing allows this kind of criminal conduct to gain undue legitimacy in the judicial process. This should be avoided. Vigilantism undermines the rule of law and interferes with the administration of justice. It takes justice out of the hands of the police and the courts, and puts it into the hands of criminals. As a general rule, those who engage in it should expect to be treated severely.

R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 SCR 496, at para. 58

Legal Principles and Analysis: (Relevant Legislation and Caselaw)

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46

430 (1) Every one commits mischief who willfully (a) destroys or damages property;

(4.1) Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property described in any of paragraphs (4.101)(a) to (d), if the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or mental or physical disability, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(4.101) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), property means (a) a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used for religious worship — including a church, mosque, synagogue or temple —, an object associated with religious worship located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery;

436.1 Every person who possesses any incendiary material, incendiary device or explosive substance for the purpose of committing an offence under any of sections 433 to 436 is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[43] Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. (See s. 718.1). This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to your circumstances Ashton Gray, and the circumstances of the offences you committed.

[44] Further, in determining an appropriate sentence, I must turn my mind to the relevant factor as noted in section 718.2

718.2 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, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor, (vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under section 742.1 or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[45] The 1999 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, made it clear that sentencing judges, in order to fulfil our remedial role, are to consider (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection.

The Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[46] I have considered the following factors on the plea that I consider in my reasons when imposing this sentence, first the mitigating factors, or those factors that allow me to reduce the sentence I might otherwise impose:

(1) This was an early plea, and though I note some 97 real days of pre-trial custody, I would still consider this a very early plea given you were interested in pleading almost from the very beginning. I was grateful that you decided to retain counsel to assist you. You are an able advocate on your behalf, but this was rather complex, and the legal assistance was appreciated.

(2) As an Indigenous, black and transgender individual, I recognize that the deck is stacked against you. The history of colonialism and racism are well documented in this country. The impact on mental health, poverty, over representation within the criminal justice system, and economic opportunity are significant, and I recognize the negative impact these have had on Indigenous and black people in this country. Further, I accept that life as an individual who is transgender is not easy. There is still much bias and misunderstanding that exists. That in this day and age, people still argue about proper pronouns and recognition of a person’s gender identity is astounding to me. Furthermore, transgender folks still are vastly overrepresented as victims of crime. All these systemic factors I have considered against your sentence.

(3) I also consider your mental health as a factor in reducing your moral culpability. In the decision of R. v. Turosky, [2013] O.J. No.355 at para 31, Justice van Rensburg cites Justice Durno in Hagendorf, 2000 CarswellOnt 5245 (S.C.):

31 In R. v. Hagendorf, 2000 CarswellOnt 5245 (S.C.), a case involving a guilty plea to manslaughter in respect of the death of one victim and the attempted murder of another, Durno J. noted, at para. 50, that "it is in relation to the degree of responsibility of the offender that the evidence of [the offender's] mental illness impacts. A person who commits crimes of any type and particularly crimes of violence while in a sane and sober condition, unaffected by mental impairment of any kind, has the highest level of responsibility, or moral culpability". Later, at para. 54, he noted, "reported cases support the position that a person who commits an offence while suffering from a major mental illness which is at least a contributing factor in the commission of the offence receives a shorter term than those who commit the same offence unaffected by mental illness".................................................................................................................................... I recognize that you have been dealing with a mental health diagnosis, your counsel mentioned a bi-polar which I know you have been struggling to manage and when you are out of custody is often aggravated by your drug use. I have considered that as well. I recognize that these challenges make it difficult for you to deal with your anger and express it in a healthy way through a combination of your mental health and trauma.

(4) I also considered your personal background, the very difficult childhood, being placed into care, the loss of family, and their own struggle with addiction as well. You hit all the markers we too often see with Indigenous people coming through the courts and I recognize the impact this would have had on you as well.

[47] I have also considered the following as aggravating:

(1) Though I accepted that you were not motivated to deliberately harm anyone with your actions, I do find that you were reckless about the impact of your actions. Had your plan worked, had you followed through with your misguided acts of violence, it could well have resulted in serious harm or danger, not just to occupants, but to neighbouring properties and even first responders who would have been dispatched to deal with the fire.

(2) The fact that you did this just 3 days after I released you on a conditional sentence, is a serious factor to consider. I tried to give you the opportunity to make connections in the community and to get some support for your mental health and substance use issues, and frankly, your anger issues. You squandered that away by committing this first offence just 3 days later.

(3) The fact that this was motivated by bias is a serious consideration as well. I understand the rage and anger we have all felt over the developments of the summer. But retaliation against a random church, is not a solution. It is completely inappropriate and should never be tolerated. I accept that. Vigilante justice has no place in our society. It is not a tradition of Canadian culture, and it is not a tradition of Indigenous culture. The vigilante aspects of your actions are deeply troubling, notwithstanding that you said you were looking for a means to vent your anger and frustration, you were seeking to exact your pound of flesh for those harms done to Indigenous people by burning down a building completely unrelated to the plight of those dead Indigenous children, and your actions must be condemned.

[48] You said in your comments to me at the end of the sentencing hearing, Ashton Gray, that I could not understand what life is like for a person in your circumstances, being Indigenous, black, and transgender. You are right that I cannot truly understand completely what your life must be like, though I am trying the best I can. I see the rage and anger you feel at the world. You have suffered many indignities and I am sure, many more than I have heard about in this hearing.

[49] You say you live your life not knowing if you will be alive from one day to the next. I accept that you feel that way. But as I mentioned earlier, unless you start to deal with your anger in a healthier way, and not target whoever or whatever you see as an impediment to what you want in the moment, you are going to face increasingly difficult consequences in the criminal justice system.

[50] I mentioned that your moral culpability is reduced by virtue of your background and the impact of colonialism and oppression. This is true but being lessened does not mean there is no culpability. You must learn to appreciate the impact of your anger and frustration on others, many of whom, I would argue, are not the root cause of your anger and frustration. They may be connected to what makes your life difficult, but they are not responsible for it. Until you learn that lesson, I fear you are condemning yourself to a life sentence in jail on the installment plan. You have been in jail more often than not, and I would say, significantly so for the past 6 years or so.

[51] You deserve better. You deserve to be free of your rage. You deserve not to feel so frustrated and targeted by every obstacle you perceive as an attack on you. I hope you find that someday, because if you don’t, I fear you are bound to continue spending more time in custody, and if the harm you cause gets much more serious and/or as consistent as it seems to be getting, that time could be significantly longer.

[52] In light of the factors noted above, in particular based on the serious nature of the offences you committed, all while only just out on a conditional sentence I had just imposed, and in consideration of the significant mitigating factors, and would, in other circumstances, lead to a sentence in the mid reformatory range in total, I sentence you to the following:

(1) For mischief to a religious structure as motivated by bias: throwing the brick at the “grotto” – 45 days (2) For the possession of an incendiary device, for the purpose of committing an arson – 45 days consecutive (3) The breach of conditional sentence – in light of the 97 days in pre-trial custody – a further 30 days in custody.

[53] I will now entertain any submissions with respect to any variation of the terms of the conditional sentence.

Released: December 22, 2021 Signed: Justice André Chamberlain

[1] Proceedings at Plea Court before the Honourable Justice John C. Moore on November 14, 2019 at Toronto Ontario, page 3, lines 11 to 15 [2] Proceedings at bail hearing before the Honourable Justice Michael Block on April 29, 2020, at Toronto Ontario, [3] https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/1412487763128209413?lang=en [4] Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future, Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Preface, www.TRC.CA, page vi [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Residential_Schools_Settlement_Agreement#cite_note-galloway_20160426-49 [6] I am not at all impressed by acts of destruction such as this. July 1, 2021, https://www.facebook.com/Sincmurr/posts/1535266766805534