Court Information
Court: Ontario Court of Justice Location: Newmarket Date: 2025-09-12
Between: His Majesty the King — and — Kyle James Smith Stebbins
Heard and Delivered: September 12, 2025
Counsel:
- Ms. Roxana Jahani-Geran — counsel for the Crown
- Mr. Douglas Lent — counsel for the defendant
SENTENCING
KENKEL J.:
[1] A plate query in a motel parking lot led to a vehicle stop where Mr. Smith Stebbins was found driving contrary to multiple prohibitions. He was convicted at trial of three counts of operating a conveyance while prohibited contrary to s 320.18.
[2] The Crown proceeded summarily. They are seeking the maximum custodial sentence of 2 years less 1 day because he has 7 prior convictions for the same offence and 11 prior convictions for failing to comply with court orders.
[3] The defence submits that despite the prior convictions, the maximum sentence is a significant distance from past sentences and the jump principle applies. Mr. Smith Stebbins is also from an indigenous background, and the court should consider alternatives like a conditional sentence of 6-12 months before ordering a lengthy period of incarceration.
[4] Mr. Smith Stebbins is now 40. He's self-employed and has returned to live in London where he grew up. That's also close to his indigenous community – The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation.
[5] Mr. Smith Stebbins' sister is quoted in the pre-sentence report as saying that she has seen him make positive changes in his life since this offence. That's consistent with the fact that the offences were committed one year and eight months ago and a check of the Crown provincial records today did not show any further offences since. Something must have changed, because Mr. Smith Stebbins had 9 sets of convictions between 2022 and 2023.
[6] I agree with the Crown that the jump principle does not dictate a gradual increase in sentencing where prior court orders have repeatedly been disregarded. This is certainly that case. However, it is relevant that Mr. Smith Stebbins' last sentence for this offence was 6 months, but that was part of a global resolution of 9 counts. The immediate prior sentence for drive prohibited was a $1000 fine. Prior to that in the same year he received a 6-month conditional sentence for the same offence.
[7] The information about Mr. Smith Stebbins' indigenous background was vague, but the story was familiar. He was raised by a single mother in London. He had no connection to his First Nation, so he did not have the support of that community. He left school at the earliest possible age (16). He was convicted of impaired operation at the age of 19. The PSR describes his long involvement with cocaine and later crystal methamphetamine. The year-long drug counselling in 2023 appears to have helped him change course.
[8] He has a lengthy record from 2004 to this conviction, and numerous breaches of prohibitions and court orders over that time, but there are no convictions for offences of violence and no drug convictions.
[9] I agree with the Crown that there is a need here for a significant deterrent sentence to make the point with Mr. Smith Stebbins and others like him that court orders must be obeyed. Had he been sentenced shortly after arrest a jail sentence would have been inevitable. Somehow, he was granted bail despite all of the past breaches. His history, particularly in the two years prior indicated a strong likelihood that he would commit further offences within months if not weeks. Instead, Mr. Smith Stebbins took the opportunity to make a change, likely related to the counselling he received in 2023. That circumstance provides strong support for Mr. Lent's submission that a conditional sentence would be sufficient to send the required message and would be complied with.
[10] There is a 4-year gap in his record from 2007 to 2011. There is a 7-year gap between 2015 and 2022. He can rehabilitate. The pre-sentence report finds that he now is an appropriate candidate for community supervision if that should be the order of the court. They would not have said that in the recent past. While specific deterrence is the central goal, rehabilitation remains an objective.
[11] In considering the appropriate sentence, I'm mindful of the need to consider all alternatives to incarceration that are reasonable in the circumstances in relation to indigenous offenders like Mr. Smith Stebbins.
[12] Considering all of the circumstances, I find a conditional sentence of 15 months on each count concurrent for a total conditional sentence of 15 months is proportionate to the offences and the circumstances of the offender and meets the purpose and principles of sentence in this case.
[13] Mr. Smith Stebbins is sentenced to serve 15 months of custody in the community by way of a conditional sentence order. In addition to the statutory conditions, he will abide by the following conditions:
Report to your supervisor within 48 hours by phone and thereafter as required.
For the first 5 months remain confined in your home at all times with the following exceptions: for the purpose of employment at your shop, for the purpose of counselling pursuant to this order, to shop for necessities on Wednesdays between the hours of 12 noon and 4pm, or for personal medical emergencies, or except with the written permission of your supervisor.
For the second 5-month period you are to obey a curfew to remain in your residence between the hours of 10pm and 7am with the following exceptions: for personal medical emergencies, except written permission of your supervisor.
There is no curfew or house arrest for the final 5 months.
Not operate a motor vehicle.
Take counselling as directed by probation. The court recommends that the counselling be directed towards traditional healing in community-based indigenous programs. If possible, these should include the involvement of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation.
[14] At this point both parties agree it is necessary to prohibit Mr. Smith Stebbins from operating a motor vehicle in Canada for life.
Delivered: September 12, 2025
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel