Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: August 28, 2025

Court File No.: Pembroke 22-37200089-01

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Jevoi Sangster

Before: Justice J.R. Richardson

Heard: August 20, 2025

Reasons for Judgment Released: August 28, 2025

Counsel

Timothy McCann — Counsel for the Federal Crown

Cassandra Richards — Counsel for the Offender

Judgment

RICHARDSON, J.:

Introduction

[1] On October 24, 2024, Justice March imposed a two-year-less-one-day conditional sentence order on Mr. Sangster for the offences of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking of Fentanyl and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking of Cocaine. The order included a house arrest term, requiring Mr. Sangster to be in Scarborough. It also required him to be subject to electronic monitoring.

[2] On June 4, 2025, Mr. Sangster was found in Pembroke when police executed a search warrant at 756 Pembroke Street West pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. He is now charged with drugs and weapons charges arising from the execution of that warrant. Those charges are not before me and, although I have a general awareness of their nature, the parties agree that they are to be left to another Court. I have disabused my mind of them.

[3] The parties agree that Mr. Sangster is in breach of the following provisions of Justice March's conditional sentence order:

a) He breached condition 1 by failing to keep the peace. The breach arises from the fact that he breached the peace when he violated the other provisions of his conditional sentence order, which I set out below.

b) He breached conditions 8 and 9. These conditions required Mr. Sangster to be subject to house arrest at an address in Scarborough, not approximately 360 kilometers away at 756 Pembroke Street West in Pembroke.

c) He breached conditions 12 and 13. These conditions required Mr. Sangster to be subject to electronic monitoring while he was on house arrest. It is admitted that when he was arrested in Pembroke on June 4, he was not wearing the GPS monitor that had been affixed to his body when he was placed on the Conditional Sentence by Justice March.

d) Other alleged breaches contained in the allegation of breach material before the Court are not admitted, nor are allegations relating to Mr. Sangster's willingness to participate in counselling and issues related to his relationship with his supervisor. I have disabused my mind of them.

[4] The parties also agreed that as of June 4, 2025, Mr. Sangster had 506 days left to serve on his conditional sentence. He is entitled to 1:1 credit for the period between June 4, 2025 and today's date, which I calculate at 86 days. This leaves 420 days left to serve.

[5] The parties are in agreement that the conditional sentence order of Justice March should be collapsed in some way. They disagree on the amount to which it should be collapsed.

[6] Counsel for Mr. Sangster argued that Mr. Sangster should be dealt with as follows:

a) That I require him to serve 335 days (11 months) of his remaining 420 days in custody.

b) That he then be permitted to resume his Conditional Sentence for the 85 days that would remain, before starting the probation order that Justice March placed him on.

[7] The Crown argued that Mr. Sangster's entire remaining conditional sentence should be collapsed.

[8] Despite counsel for Mr. Sangster's able argument, I find that the time to be served on Mr. Sangster's remaining conditional sentence should be collapsed and he should serve the balance of that sentence in custody.

The Proceedings Before Justice March

[9] On March 12, 2024, Mr. Sangster appeared before Justice March and entered pleas to one count of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Fentanyl and one count of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Cocaine.

[10] On July 29, 2022, police obtained a search warrant for 362 Mary Street in the City of Pembroke. Police had information that this was the residence of Joanne Reis and her son Nigel Reis. Police also had information from a confidential informant that there were individuals coming from Toronto in order to traffic in controlled substances.

[11] The same day, just before they obtained the search warrant, police observed three persons enter the residence.

[12] Once they obtained and executed the search warrant, Mr. Sangster, along with Timothy Williams, Brandon Brownlee, Jessica Dupont and a young person were located in the residence. Messrs. Sangster, Williams and the young person were from Toronto.

[13] A search of Mr. Sangster's person revealed seven grams of powdered fentanyl and seven grams of powdered cocaine. Other items were seized in the residence, including a loaded 9 mm glock handgun, a further 70 grams of fentanyl on a weigh scale, and another 45 grams of cocaine beside the coffee table, but those items could not be attributed to Mr. Sangster. Mr. Sangster was also holding what was colourfully described by the Crown and Justice March as "a fist full of dollars."

[14] Mr. Sangster's cell phone was seized. A search of the cell phone revealed conversations consistent with Mr. Sangster trafficking in controlled substances.

[15] Justice March found Mr. Sangster guilty and ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

[16] The matter came on for argument on September 16, 2024.

[17] The pre-sentence report revealed that:

a) Mr. Sangster was barely a month past his 18th birthday when he committed the offences. He was 20 at the time of his sentencing.

b) He is an only child. His parents separated when he was four because his father was deported due to having a criminal record. He has a number of half-siblings.

c) He did not report being a witness to domestic violence when he grew up, nor was abused as a child. Child protection was not involved with the family.

d) His father was murdered in the United States in September 2021.

e) As he grew up, he focussed on basketball and was a member of rep basketball teams which travelled, including to the United States. This ended as a result of the isolation requirements of COVID-19.

f) He reported that he did not have any friends.

g) His mother described him as kind, respectful and loving. He has a close relationship with other members of his family. He has struggled since the death of his father and a close friend[^1].

h) He suffers from TIC syndrome, which involves involuntary nerve movements. His symptoms are worse when he is anxious or angry. He sees a doctor and is on medication for this ailment.

i) He apparently had a girlfriend, but little was known about her or the seriousness of their relationship. She was a co-accused on Newmarket charges[^2].

j) He was suspended a couple of times in elementary school for fighting.

k) He did not complete high school. He got as far as Grade 11. He found the isolation of COVID-19 affected his performance at school. He stated that he was a "hands on person". He expressed the desire to complete his high school education and become an electrician.

l) He had some part-time work for his uncle as a labourer. He wanted to work as an electrician with his uncle in the future.

m) He denied use of alcohol.

n) He started smoking cannabis when he was 16. He stopped because of basketball but resumed during the pandemic.

o) He has experimented with Percocet, which he finds helps to calm him down and helps him to sleep.

p) He denied use of cocaine or fentanyl.

q) With respect to fentanyl, he stated: "I know that its killing a lot of people, and its not something people should be giving to people. I learned from my mistakes that you shouldn't be selling that to people, giving that to people. It's a bad thing to the people who look at it from the outside, the people who do it don't think it's wrong. I don't really think about that stuff."

r) He described his involvement in the offences as "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

s) He denied being involved with a gang.

t) He indicated that he "just smokes weed" to control his stress and anger.

u) He described himself as fun, funny, something of a loner, and ambitious.

v) His mother indicated that Mr. Sangster made a "360 degree turn" during COVID-19 because he could no longer engage in the sport of basketball. At about the same time, Mr. Sangster's father passed away.

w) Mr. Sangster's mother also indicated that she has never found weapons or drugs among his effects. She admitted to conducting random searches of his room and effects "just to make sure".

x) Mr. Sangster was reported to be engaged and doing satisfactorily on the community portion of his sentence from 2023.

y) The author of the pre-sentence report concluded:

In considering the potential risk of further offending identified areas of concerns in the author's opinion would therefore include poor decision making, engaging in impulsive and risky actions, disregard for public safety, access to weapons, potential substance abuse issues and negative peers and/or associates. From conversations with the subject, it is not clear whether he has an understanding into some of these concerns, however the subject could in this author's view benefit from counselling services that will provide him with an opportunity to examine, challenge, and restructure his thought processes to understand the situation he has found himself in. Indeed, his mother observed that her son would benefit from support to work on his emotions, stating "he is grieving, sometimes he has outbursts, he needs emotional support."

Programs services whether in the community or custody such as trauma counselling anti-criminal thinking and or psychological counselling would be of benefit to the subject as it is evident that he needs to come to terms with the death of his father however ultimately it will be incumbent upon Mr. Sangster to demonstrate the necessary motivation and learning if he is to move forward and become a more productive member of society.

[18] Mr. Sangster wrote a letter to the Court which was ultimately attached as a schedule to Justice March's Judgment. In the letter, Mr. Sangster expressed the desire to "fully acknowledge and take complete accountability" for his behaviour. He stated that he was "committed to making amends to everyone involved" and making sure that he did "not commit any further crimes" or get himself "into any trouble." He said that he was at "rock bottom" as a result of the pandemic and the deaths of his father and his friend. He stated that, "I recognize that I cannot keep living my life and going down this path. I want to live and I want to be there for my family members especially my little sister." He concluded, "I understand that an apology cannot undo the harm I have done but I am hoping it shows that I am remorseful and sorry. I am truly hoping that I get the chance to make it right by living within the law of this great country."

[19] Crown counsel sought a carceral sentence of between two and three years.

[20] Defence counsel sought a conditional sentence in the range of two years, to be followed by three years probation.

[21] On October 24, 2024, Justice March rendered his decision. It is now reported as R. v. Sangster, 2024 ONCJ 549. Justice March found that:

a) Mr. Sangster was "trying to right his recently listing ship. I accept that real jail scared him. He does not want to go back" (paragraph 67).

b) He was expecting a new child, which Justice March expressed hope would "motivate him to effect positive change" (paragraph 67).

c) There were no breaches or new allegations between his release from custody in February 2024 and the date of his sentencing (paragraph 68).

d) He expressed a desire to pursue a career as an electrician (paragraph 68).

e) The gravity of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, particularly in Pembroke, was a serious offence and was aggravating (paragraph 72a).

f) The fact that Mr. Sangster's activity was planned and profit-driven was aggravating (paragraph 72b).

g) He incurred further charges while on bail (paragraph 72b).

h) His guilty plea was mitigating (paragraph 73a).

i) His apparent expression of genuine remorse was mitigating (paragraph 73b).

j) His youth and "good prospects of prosocial integration in his community" was mitigating (paragraph 73c).

k) His ongoing support from his family and friends was mitigating.

[22] Pursuant to R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, Justice March considered the fact that Mr. Sangster is a young Black man who had a deprived childhood. He also noted that Mr. Sangster was from Scarborough, a part of Toronto well known for gun and drug violence. Justice March noted at paragraphs 96 to 101 the dilemma posed by Mr. Sangster's sentencing:

To my mind, the correlation can be drawn between the incessant violence and sale of drugs, notwithstanding a formidable police presence in the community in which Sangster was raised, and his desensitization to the moral blameworthiness inherent in drug trafficking.

I hearken back to what Sangster himself said to the author of his PSR about his life experience as a child growing up in Scarborough. He stated:

I've always been in the environment where violence can happen. We didn't have much money, so we've always lived in places where stuff happens. I've seen it . . . It's a good neighborhood [Mornelle Court], but it's also a bad neighborhood. I've seen people getting robbed, people getting hurt. I've never been a stranger to that type of stuff. My mom did the best she can to get us out, but she didn't have lots of money."

To borrow the analogy of Crown counsel, most five-year-olds would know the inherent harm in the sale of fentanyl, if they came from middle to upper class white backgrounds where the sale of illegal drugs around public basketball courts is more than likely non-existent. The situation is markedly different for the marginalized, working class, underprivileged, Black, five-year-old, who has to grow up in that type of environment through no fault of his own, nor any exercise of free will on his part.

I find that Sangster experienced those realities in his life from a very young age, and it impacted his thought processes and values. He tried to avoid the temptation of easy money through the sale of drugs. COVID-19 intervened and put an end to his dream of making it to the NBA. He gave up and gave in. (see Morris at para. 154)

Already, he has paid a heavy price for the lifestyle he tried to avoid as a boy but fell into as a young adult. He has spent the equivalent of two years less a day in jail.

At this juncture, I must now decide what to do with him in treating him as a first-time, youthful offender, just 18 years and one month of age when he committed the crimes for which I must sentence him. He made bad choices, but he did not come to them with the same moral blameworthiness that should attach to someone with the vast array of options in life unavailable to less fortunate segments of society.

[23] Ultimately Justice March imposed a sentence of two years less a day conditional, to be followed by three years of probation. For the first sixteen months of the sentence, he ordered Mr. Sangster to abide by house arrest. For the remaining portion of the sentence, he was to be subject to a curfew between 11 and 6. He was to be subject to electronic monitoring for both the house arrest and the curfew.

[24] Justice March reasoned at paragraphs 113 and 114:

Sangster is far from the perfect candidate for a conditional sentence, but he is no hardened criminal. As a sentencing judge, I need not throw up my hands and tell Sangster at this point and going forward from today, the only judicial response to any continued offending on his part is jail.

At the root, I fear that, if I had acceded to the Crown's submission and sent Sangster to the penitentiary, I would have risked institutionalizing him for life. No one in society would benefit from such an outcome. The cycle of anti-Black racialization, poverty, desperation, poor life choices, and crime would go on for him, and perhaps his unborn child too. Instead, I prefer to hold him accountable, but at the same time, give him one last chance at hope for a better future.

[25] In my view, when Mr. Sangster breached the conditional sentence order in June 2025, he blew the "one last chance" that Justice March gave him.

[26] With respect to what the appropriate carceral sentence for Mr. Sangster's crime should be, Justice March had difficulty pinning that down. He concluded at paragraph 78 of his judgment that there was "…no clear appellate authority for determining the appropriate ambit of sentence for trafficking in smaller quantities of fentanyl by street level dealers."

[27] Justice March endorsed Justice Boswell's review of the sentencing jurisprudence in R. v. Brazier, 2023 ONSC 6315, where Justice Boswell stated at paragraph 69, "….it would appear to me that the range is beginning to settle into something between 18 months on the low end and 36 months on the high end, depending on the particular aggravating and mitigating circumstances present."

[28] However, Justice March also endorsed Justice Calsavara's decision in R. v. Grant, 2021 ONCJ 507, where she imposed a two-year-less-one-day conditional sentence for possession of 9.5 grams of fentanyl, 26 grams of crack cocaine, 13.2 grams of powdered cocaine and 4 grams of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. Justice March noted at paragraph 86 that "Grant is the closest on the facts to the case before me."

Mr. Sangster's Criminal Record

[29] Mr. Sangster's criminal record was filed as an Exhibit. It has two entries.

[30] He was convicted at Newmarket on July 27, 2023 for the offence of Possession of a Prohibited or Restricted Firearm with Ammunition, contrary to section 95 of the Criminal Code, and Failing to Comply with a Release Order contrary to section 145 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 444 days credit for time served, 285 days custody plus 18 months probation.

[31] I note that although Mr. Sangster was convicted and sentenced on these charges before he was convicted and sentenced by Justice March, he was on bail for the Pembroke charges when he committed these offences.

[32] He was sentenced by Justice March on two counts of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. One count involved Fentanyl. The other count involved cocaine. Justice March sentenced him to two years less a day conditional, on the fentanyl count, and one year conditional concurrent on the cocaine count. He also placed him on Probation for a period of three years.

[33] For a man of 21 years, this is a significant record.

The Law With Respect to Breaches of Conditional Sentences

[34] When an offender breaches his conditional sentence, there is a presumption that the offender will serve the balance of the conditional sentence behind bars. This is necessary to ensure that the offender complies with the conditions imposed by being under the constant threat of incarceration: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at paragraph 39.

[35] Termination of a conditional sentence order does not, however, necessarily flow from every breach. If the breach involves the commission of new offences, or endangers the community, all or a portion of the unexpired sentence should be served in prison: R. v. JW.

[36] In determining the appropriate sanction for a breach, the Court is required to continue to exercise the principles of restraint, proportionality, denunciation, and general and specific deterrence. I must also consider the circumstances of the original offence, the nature and circumstances of the breach, the circumstances of the offender, and the time remaining on the conditional sentence order. I must determine whether the conditional sentence imposed was longer than what would have been an appropriate carceral sentence. I must address whether it is still appropriate to serve the original sentence or a portion of it: R. v. Antaya, 2022 ONCA 819.

The Circumstances of the Original Offence

[37] The insidious and devastating effects of fentanyl trafficking in Ontario and Canada were considered by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Loor, 2017 ONCA 696, R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109 and by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46. Justice March considered the impact of these cases, particularly Loor and Parranto when he sentenced Mr. Sangster originally.

[38] Recently, in R. v. Hier, 2025 ONCJ 383, at paragraphs 49 to 62, I commented on the disproportionate impact that fentanyl trafficking has had in the City of Pembroke:

As one of two resident judges in Pembroke, and as a judge who frequently presides in Renfrew County's Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Court, I am all too familiar with the scourge of fentanyl trafficking in our community.

As I have said in other fentanyl trafficking cases, hardly a day goes by when I have not heard of a person who has overdosed from fentanyl.

Fentanyl trafficking has had a disproportionate effect on Pembroke. According to a CBC report a year ago, Pembroke has more than double the number of fatal overdoses per capita than the rest of Ontario. The mortality rate in Pembroke is also four times higher than the surrounding area.

The human cost of fentanyl is staggering.

Equally staggering is the financial cost.

Pembroke only has a population of 15,000. The County itself has a population of just over 100,000. It is the largest of the 57 original counties in Ontario and encompasses a geographical area that is larger than the Province of Prince Edward Island.

Renfrew County does not have a public transit system, or a shelter for individuals who are suffering from mental health and addictions problems. It does not have enough treatment facilities and we must often resort to other – often far afield – communities to meet the treatment needs of the homeless, addicted, and mental health population.

To try to combat the interplay between mental health, addictions and homelessness, the County of Renfrew Paramedic Service started the MESA project a year ago. The project involves a paramedic, a crisis worker and an addictions counsellor who go out into the community to meet with and provide care to individuals who are in this population.

These workers spend their days trying to reach the homeless, mental health afflicted and addicted population, many of whom live in encampments in the City. Every day, at great cost to the community, these workers patiently try to reach those whom drug traffickers like Ms Hier have helped render unable to function and live a normal life.

The County of Renfrew is commended for the progressive steps it has taken to address this serious problem.

The City of Pembroke, which prides itself in the slogan, "The heart of the Ottawa Valley" has had significant difficulties addressing the problem. Significant tensions have arisen between the community, on the one hand, and the homeless, addicted, and mental health afflicted population and those who serve them on the other. Local politicians, police officers, nurses and community agencies are caught in the middle.

In fairness to the community, the crisis in homelessness, mental health and addictions, particularly fentanyl addiction, in Pembroke has resulted in more frequent complaints of witnessing drug trafficking, finding drug paraphernalia, and breaches of the peace such as loitering, shouting and verbal abuse, and public defecation.

While fentanyl trafficking and addiction is not the only source of these problems – as I have stated there are homelessness and mental health crises too – fentanyl trafficking and addiction contributes significantly to all of these community problems and tensions.

This crisis is tearing the community apart.

[39] Although those words were written in the summer of 2025, they were just as applicable when Justice March originally sentenced Mr. Sangster.

[40] They are just as applicable today.

[41] Although the facts in Hier are significantly different, I find that Mr. Sangster's moral blameworthiness as a trafficker in fentanyl is very high. The passage of time since his sentencing before Justice March has not changed that.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Breach

[42] As agreed upon by the parties, I have disabused my mind with respect to the new offence allegations against Mr. Sangster. I therefore am unable to find, following JW, supra that the community is in danger or that the breach arises from the commission of new offences.

[43] That is not to say that the nature and circumstances of his breach are not serious.

[44] On the contrary, it is very serious and highly aggravating. A key component of any conditional sentence – indeed one of the things that sets it apart from a probationary disposition – is house arrest. Proulx makes it clear that this is designed to reflect the punitive aspect of the conditional sentencing regime. A house arrest also serves to protect the public from the accused. In the case of a drug trafficker like Mr. Sangster, if he is serving a period of home confinement it is more difficult to engage in his stock and trade. Not impossible, but more difficult.

[45] Thus, in the hierarchy of breaches, short of the commission of additional offences or conduct that puts the public at risk, I can think of no more serious breach than a breach of a house arrest condition.

[46] Now there are breaches of house arrest and then there are BREACHES of house arrest.

[47] House arrest is particularly difficult on offenders. It amounts to isolation. It can be extremely difficult on offenders who have families or vast networks of friends. It is also very difficult on offenders who have significant mental health and addictions problems. It is a significant imposition on an offender's liberty. It is not unusual for an offender to breach their house arrest for a short period of time. It is not unusual for an offender to breach a conditional sentence more than once. Not every breach of house arrest therefore will result in a total collapse of a conditional sentence.

[48] This, however, was a significant BREACH. Removal of a GPS monitor and being found by police in a location which, apart from the commission of offences, you have no connection to is extremely serious. This is particularly so when the location is in excess of 360 kilometers and over four hours away from where he was required by court order to be and was the location where he committed the offences for which he was sentenced.

[49] It was a total repudiation of the conditional sentence order.

[50] Mr. Sangster's moral blameworthiness on the breach is extremely high.

[51] He decided to essentially thumb his nose at Justice March's Order and the sentencing logic that was behind it.

[52] He intended to commit a wilful and flagrant violation of Justice March's Order.

[53] He does not suffer from a serious mental health or addiction problem which make a house arrest term of a conditional sentence order more difficult to follow and which would inform the breach.

The Assessment of Sentencing Provisions with Respect to the Appropriate Disposition for the Breach

[54] Wholesale breach of a house arrest term in a conditional sentence order must be strenuously denounced by the Court. This is necessary to give continued efficacy to the conditional sentence regime. A denunciatory response to a house arrest term of a conditional sentence order is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and in the use of a conditional sentence as a sentencing tool.

[55] A breach of the nature that Mr. Sangster committed here must also be punished in a way that serves to deter others from engaging in similar behaviour.

[56] Mr. Sangster still has a three-year probation order to serve. He is only 21 years old. He was in breach of his release order when he committed the Newmarket offences. He needs to be punished in a way that will specifically deter him from committing similar breaches in the future. He has not learned that court orders must be followed. The disposition must help him so learn.

Mitigating Factors

[57] At 21, Mr. Sangster is a young man.

[58] Mr. Sangster admitted the breach. That said, a finding that he was in breach was almost an absolute certainty.

[59] Mr. Sangster is Black. Justice March, citing Morris, expressed concern about the over-representation of Black offenders in custody. He also noted the offender's background and the presence of violence in his life that has taken the lives of his friend and of his father.

[60] I am also concerned about all of these things and I recognise these principles.

[61] However, when given a chance by the Court to ameliorate the long-term effects of his background and avoid becoming another institutionalized Black man in custody, Mr. Sangster breached. As I have pointed out, it was not a trifling breach, which the Court would be more likely to be lenient in disposing of. Nor was it a breach that could be understood by virtue of a mental health or addiction problem. It was a major breach. It was a major breach without any explanation. The Court simply cannot countenance it.

Harsh Conditions in Custody

[62] Defence counsel filed a report from Staff Sergeant Munro of the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre which set out the conditions that Mr. Sangster has endured while he has been in custody.

[63] Mr. Sangster has been housed in General Population at the institution. The report indicates that between June 4 and August 18, 2025, he was subject to lockdown for 12 full days, two afternoons and evenings, two mornings, two afternoons and 34 evenings.

[64] The report does not discuss the extent to which Mr. Sangster may have been subjected to overcrowding. I routinely receive reports that inmates are housed three or four to a cell designed for two.

[65] Mr. Sangster also filed an Affidavit, which was admitted on consent, in which:

a) he complained that he had not been outside for approximately three weeks;

b) he stated that he has been confined to a cell with three to a cell "for the majority of the time";

c) he stated that he sleeps on a mattress on the floor;

d) he complained that inmates eat their meals in the cell and because there are no tables, they must eat on the floor or from their knees;

e) he complained that the air conditioning and ventilation systems have not been working;

f) he stated that his medical condition has worsened and that his medication was changed while he was at the jail;

g) he stated that he has been working on completing his high school education while at the jail and he is now finished the math portion of his program.

[66] I have commented on these intolerable conditions in other decisions, see for example, R. v. KT, 2025 ONCJ 234, where I gave substantial credit for pre-sentence lock-down and overcrowding with respect to an offender who is developmentally delayed and a mentally unwell individual.

[67] Mr. Sangster is not, however, KT. He does not have the same mental health and capacity issues which exacerbated the effect of harsh conditions on KT. Nor is he receiving a sentence as long as KT's, which was a substantial penitentiary sentence.

[68] The extent to which harsh conditions are to be considered by the Court in mitigation is discretionary. The Court is obligated to consider the fitness of the sentence. Credit for harsh conditions cannot be used to make a fit sentence unfit: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Brown, 2025 ONCA 164.

[69] Nor, in the case of a conditional sentence breach, can it be used to make the appropriate degree of punishment inappropriate.

[70] In this case, in my view, it would render the degree of punishment inappropriate. Justice March's sentencing decision was in part based on his finding, set out above, that Mr. Sangster had seen the error of his ways and did not want to go back to jail.

[71] I repeat that his actions in thumbing his nose at the Court's decision are so grave that anything less than a complete collapse of his conditional sentence – harsh conditions or not – would not pay sufficient heed to the principles of proportionality, denunciation and deterrence.

[72] I, therefore, decline to grant any additional credit for the harsh conditions that Mr. Sangster has found himself in while in custody.

Disposition

[73] For these reasons, despite defence counsel's excellent submissions, I agree with the Crown that Mr. Sangster's Conditional Sentence must be completely collapsed.

[74] I find that he was in breach as of June 4, 2025 and that the conditional sentence is collapsed as of that date.

[75] I find that he has 420 days left to serve.

[76] I terminate the conditional sentence order and require him to serve 420 days in custody.

[77] Once he has completed the custodial portion of the sentence, the probation order issued by Justice March will begin.

Released: August 28, 2025

Signed: Justice J.R. Richardson

[^1]: I was told in Court that like his father, his close friend also died violently.

[^2]: See the information related to Mr. Sangster's criminal record, below.