Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Oshawa 24 28106537 Date: October 3, 2025 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King — and — Zachary Robert

Before: Justice Joseph Hanna

Reasons for Sentence released on: October 3, 2025

Counsel:

• L. Dayananthan, counsel for the Crown
• K. Manitius, for the accused

Introduction

[1] Zachary Robert entered a police station and fired an airsoft gun multiple times towards officers, hitting one. He wanted the police to kill him.

[2] Mr. Robert has pleaded guilty to the following Criminal Code offences arising from this incident:

• using an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence, contrary to s. 85(2)(a);
• possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, contrary to s. 88(1);
• assault with a weapon on Police Constable Lang, contrary to s. 270.01(1)(a);
• assault with a weapon on Police Constable Vavasour, contrary to s. 270(1)(a);
• pointing a firearm at Police Constable Vavasour, contrary to s. 87(1); and
• pointing a firearm at Carolyn Venedam, contrary to s. 87(1).

[3] The Crown seeks a sentence of 18 months custody, followed by two years' probation. Additionally, the Crown requests a DNA order and a weapons prohibition.

[4] The defence submits that the appropriate sentence in this case is a conditional sentence of two years less credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions. The defence does not oppose the probation term or the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

The Circumstances of the Offences

[5] On July 27, 2024, Zachary Robert entered the police station lobby with an authentic looking black airsoft handgun.

[6] He pointed the weapon at officers, and a civilian staff member, Ms. Venedam. He fired multiple rounds, striking Police Constable Vavasour in the leg, who sustained a minor injury. Fortunately, officers present quickly realized that the weapon Mr. Robert was carrying was a pellet gun.

[7] Mr. Robert retreated into a washroom and demanded to be shot. Officers used a taser to subdue him and then arrested him. He suffered a fractured nose during the arrest and was hospitalized.

[8] Prior to the incident, Mr. Robert sent a text to his girlfriend and parents with a photo of the gun, stating he intended to provoke police into shooting him. His mother alerted police dispatch, but the warning did not reach the division in time.

[9] The airsoft gun used during the offences was seized and tested. While it is not considered a firearm for the purposes of offences listed in s. 84(3) of the Criminal Code it does qualify as a firearm in relation to the offence of pointing a firearm because it falls within the second category of barreled objects described in R. v. Dunn, 2013 ONCA 539, at para. 45, aff'd 2014 SCC 69. Mr. Robert's guilty plea to using an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence is not inconsistent with this fact because a real firearm meets the definition of an imitation firearm for the purposes of s. 85(2) of the Criminal Code: R. v. Scott, 2000 BCCA 220, aff'd 2001 SCC 73.

Facts Relating to the Offender

[10] Mr. Robert is 30 years old. He was 29 at the time he committed these offences. He has no criminal record.

[11] He was raised in a financially secure household in a nice Scarborough neighbourhood, surrounded by a supportive family. While growing up he played sports and attended various camps.

[12] Mr. Robert advised the pre-sentence report author that he experienced difficulties in middle school but that "he simmered down" once his hormones "simmered down." He did not have many friends during junior school or high school, though he developed two close friendships.

[13] While in high school, he earned academic awards and made honour roll twice despite having a learning disability. His family asserts that he was misdiagnosed as gifted by a psychiatrist who has lost her licence for having made fraudulent assessments. He completed high school and earned certificates from Durham College for Electrical Techniques and Animal Care. He is currently enrolled in a business accounting program at Durham College.

[14] He has held a variety of jobs, beginning with roles as a paper boy and camp counsellor. He also worked at a furniture manufacturer, a pet store, and a gaming store. He has held multiple positions relating to animal care. Since January 2024, he has been employed at Kingfisher International as an animal care attendant. Following his arrest, he took a leave of absence but resumed his duties after his bail conditions were varied.

[15] Mr. Robert was in a romantic relationship between July 14, 2023 and July 26, 2024. He and his partner lived at his parents' home between March and May 2024 and then in a basement apartment between June and July 2024. He described the relationship as toxic and emotionally draining. He advised that it led to multiple suicide attempts. Mr. Robert became disconnected from his family while in this relationship.

[16] He was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder in 2007, autism spectrum disorder and social anxiety disorder in 2014, and major depressive disorder in 2020.

[17] The defence filed a psychological assessment summary prepared by Dr. Matteo Renelli in relation to an assessment of Mr. Robert performed in December 2014. It indicates at that time Mr. Robert underwent a comprehensive psychological assessment over two days. He was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and found to have deficits in social communication and interaction. He was found to present with patterns of repetitive behaviours and restricted interests. For example, he was said to have a strong adherence to routine and difficulty with transitions.

[18] Mr. Robert's family physician, Doctor Edison Susman, testified at the sentencing hearing and submitted two letters detailing his care of Mr. Robert. According to Dr. Susman, Mr. Robert's depression and anxiety significantly worsened after 2020, primarily due to an inability to resolve interpersonal conflicts. These issues were further compounded by a dysfunctional relationship, which left Mr. Robert feeling inadequate and insecure, contributing to a deepening of his depressive symptoms.

[19] Dr. Susman indicated that Mr. Robert attempted suicide on four occasions between September 2023 and July 27, 2024, including during the incident that led to the current charges.

[20] Dr. Susman explained that Mr. Robert's ability to deal with life's stressors is impaired due to the combined effect of his autism and ADHD. Mr. Robert's ADHD contributes to impulsive behaviour, which has contributed to Mr. Robert acting out in self-destructive ways when overwhelmed. His autism causes emotional dysregulation and difficulty interpreting social cues, making interpersonal relationships challenging.

[21] Dr. Susman indicated that Mr. Robert's depression and anxiety symptoms have substantially improved. He attributes this progress to the adjustment of Mr. Robert's medication and his ongoing participation in psychotherapy. Mr. Robert has completed a 12-week group dialectic behaviour therapy course and is currently participating in a therapeutic program to develop coping skills with Durham Mental Health, and cognitive behavioural therapy.

[22] Dr. Susman advised that Mr. Robert has remained mentally stable since January 2025. In his opinion, Mr. Robert does not currently pose a danger to himself or others. In his view, Mr. Robert's prognosis is favourable provided he continue with his medication and therapy.

[23] The defence also filed a psychiatric consultation note authored by Dr. Anjana Chawla, dated December 17, 2024. Dr. Chawla did not observe Mr. Robert to demonstrate any psychotic or manic symptoms. He reported that Mr. Robert denied any suicidal ideations at the time, and he expressed remorse regarding the incident giving rise to his charges. The letter notes that Mr. Robert was engaged in psychotherapy and proactive in seeking help. Dr. Chawla recommended that Mr. Robert continue with his current combination of medications and suggested some adjustments in the future may be appropriate. Dr. Chawla discharged Mr. Robert back to Dr. Susman's care given that he appeared to be doing reasonably well.

[24] I received three letters of support for Mr. Robert. His parents advise that he had a happy childhood but began to struggle in the fifth grade. They describe his diagnoses over the years, the social difficulties he has faced, and Mr. Robert's multiple suicide attempts while he was in a toxic relationship. They also speak to the steps Mr. Robert has taken to deal with his mental health struggles and offer their unwavering support for him. Victoria Bowkett, a former co-worker and friend describes Mr. Robert as good worker who is passionate, caring, and honest. She also indicates that he is remorseful for his actions. Chrystal Taylor is a Supervisor at Kingfisher International where Mr. Robert currently works. She has known him for about a year and describes him as respectful, responsible, punctual, kind and professional.

[25] At his sentencing hearing Mr. Robert read a letter expressing remorse for his conduct. He stated that he realizes the seriousness of his actions and that they caused fear. He explained that he felt worthless and overwhelmed at the time of the incident. He described the experience as a wakeup call and advised that he is taking steps to improve himself. He apologized to those affected by his actions and expressed appreciation to the officers for apprehending him in a way that resulted in only limited injuries.

Victim Impact

[26] P.C. Lang prepared a victim impact statement outlining the significant physical and emotional consequences he has suffered as a result of the incident. He was injured during the struggle to subdue and arrest Mr. Robert. He woke up the next morning with severe pain in his shoulder and with a loss of motor function. During the first week following the injury, he collapsed in pain while doing his prescribed stretches. He has attended physiotherapy appointments twice a week for several months. He was placed on modified duties which caused him significant stress because he had been preparing to apply for a use of force unit – a role which would require him to pass a fitness test. His injury prevented him from enjoying many outdoor activities during the summer. This incident impacted him emotionally and psychologically. He has sought assistance from a psychotherapist. He wrote, "it wasn't so much the actual incident, but the fallout and significant impact it had on my personal life that caused me stress." Six months after the incident, he continued to experience daily discomfort and pain.

[27] Ms. Venedam also submitted a victim impact statement. She described the event which transpired as terrifying. She is haunted daily by the image of a person entering the police station and pointing a gun at her. She believed she was going to die that day. She advised that that while she used to love her job, she now despises it. Because of these offences she suffers from extreme anxiety and has sought psychological help. She explained that because of the incident she now startles easily, struggles to sleep, and that her emotional condition has affected her interactions with her family.

General Principles

[28] At arriving at a just sanction I am required to prioritize and blend the objectives enumerated in s. 718 (a) to (f) of the Criminal Code. This will involve consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors, and regard to the principles of restraint, parity, and totality: Criminal Code, ss. 718.2(b)-(e).

[29] The sentence I ultimately impose "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender": R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 30; Criminal Code, s. 718.1

Identifying the Aggravating Factors

[30] It is impermissible to impose consecutive sentences for multiple offences and simultaneously treat those offences as aggravating factors in relation to one another. This is prohibited because it would amount to double counting: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 98. When concurrent sentences are imposed, however, it is appropriate to consider the features of the various offences collectively in assessing the overall seriousness of the conduct: R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, at paras. 21–22; R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, at para. 33; R. v. Charley, 2025 ONSC 2490, at para. 45.

[31] Pursuant to ss. 85(4) and 270.03 of the Criminal Code the sentences for the use imitation firearm charge and two charges of assaulting a peace officer with a weapon must be consecutive. Accordingly, the elements of these offences cannot be treated as aggravating factors. I have decided to make the sentences for the remaining offences concurrent.

[32] I find the following aggravating factors present in this case:

i) Mr. Robert's conduct involved planning.

ii) He pointed a firearm at Ms. Venedam.

iii) By discharging his weapon multiple times, he exposed others to risk of injury.

iv) He created a hazardous scenario that presented a significant risk of an officer discharging their firearm within a confined space where people were present: R. v. Maygard, 2013 ABCA 214, at para. 29; R. v. Charlette, 2015 MBCA 32, at para. 47. The situation he caused was not only dangerous but could have resulted in lasting psychological trauma to a peace officer: R. v. Badria, 2017 ONSC 5389, at para. 38; R. v. L.R., 2020 BCPC 80, at para. 47.

v) The psychological impact on Ms. Venedam, along with the physical and emotional consequences suffered by P.C. Lang, were significant.

The Mitigating Factors

[33] The mitigating circumstances in this case include:

i) Mr. Robert has no criminal record.

ii) He has expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty. While the Crown's case was overwhelming, Mr. Robert's guilty pleas saved valuable court resources. Moreover, I accept that he is genuinely remorseful. Immediately following the incident, he apologized to the officers and since then he has expressed regret for his actions to his family, friends, his doctors, and to the court.

iii) There was a causal link between Mr. Robert's mental illness and his criminal conduct: R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25. His autism, ADHD, anxiety, and depression contributed to his sense of being overwhelmed and led him to being suicidal. I also accept that Mr. Robert's mental illnesses would make time in custody more difficult for him: R. v. Dillon, 2025 ONSC 958, at para. 26; R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, at para. 135.

iv) Mr. Robert has strong support and positive rehabilitative potential. He has taken meaningful steps to address his mental health difficulties, and he has responded well to therapy and the adjustments in his medications. Furthermore, his family and friends are committed to providing him support in the community. He also has employment available to him.

v) Mr. Robert was subject to restrictive bail conditions. For 206 days he was on a strict house arrest bail which only permitted him to be outside of his residence while with his surety. Since then, he has been on a curfew for almost eight months.

Collateral Consequences

[34] There are multiple collateral consequences Mr. Robert will face if incarcerated. I have already mentioned that his mental illnesses would make imprisonment harder for him. "Mental health challenges are relevant collateral consequences because they increase the severity of incarceration and intensify the impact of other collateral consequences, which favours a sentence reduction to achieve proportionality, promote rehabilitation, and protect the public in the long-term": R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577, at para. 38. Incarceration will have the effect of separating Mr. Robert from his family which will undoubtedly cause him and them stress. He could also lose his job. Furthermore, I observe that Mr. Robert's nose was broken while being apprehended. Though there is no suggestion the police acted inappropriately, "there is no requirement that collateral consequences emanate from state misconduct in order to be considered as a factor at sentencing": R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, at para. 56. That said, it should also be acknowledged that Mr. Robert's injury flowed from his own conduct: R. v. Aiken, 2024 ONCA 32, at para. 13. While I take these various collateral consequences into account, the sentence I impose must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender: R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24; Suter, at paras. 47-49 and 56.

Sentencing Precedents

[35] The defence submitted several cases in which conditional sentences had been imposed in cases involving firearms.

[36] In R. v. Desmond-Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369 the offender was found guilty of drug offences and possession of a sawed-off shotgun with readily accessible ammunition. The gun was found in backpack in a closet and the ammunition was stored in the same closet. The trial judge imposed a net sentence of 18 months on the firearms charge, and a sentence of time served on the drug charges. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that appellate authority precluded the imposition of a conditional sentence for a gun offence. The Court of Appeal varied the sentence to a 2 year less a day conditional sentence. The offender was 18 years old at the time of the offence and the Court of Appeal indicated that his moral blameworthiness was reduced due to circumstances beyond his control, including some that reflected systemic racism.

[37] In R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, the offender pleaded guilty to carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and breaches of court orders. The offences involved a standoff with police during which Mr. Fabbro pointed an unloaded gun at himself while in a suicidal state. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of two years less a day in prison. The Court of Appeal varied the sentence to a conditional sentence. It found that the sentencing judge erred by not considering that Mr. Fabbro's possession of the firearm was for the purpose of committing suicide and by failing to recognize a causal link between Mr. Fabbro's mental illness and his offences. The Court emphasized that the danger caused by the offender's conduct was much attenuated. The gun was not loaded, Mr. Fabbro repeatedly said he was not going to hurt anyone other than himself and the officers did not feel threatened. As such, the Court concluded that the primary sentencing objectives were not limited to deterrence and denunciation but also included rehabilitation.

[38] In R. v. Hussey-Rodrigues, 2024 ONSC 2671, the offender was found guilty of possessing a loaded firearm. Though he pleaded not guilty he did not contest the allegations. Officers observed the offender nearby an address where they were executing a warrant. When he ran, they gave chase. In the struggle that ensued, a loaded prohibited firearm fell to the ground. Presser J. imposed a conditional sentence of two years less credit for 24 days time served. While she recognized the danger associated with Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues's offence, she noted that he was 18 years old at the time he committed it, had good prospects for rehabilitation, and had been on restrictive bail conditions for almost five years at the time of sentencing. Presser J. also took into consideration the substantial collateral consequences present. Mr. Hussey-Rodrigues was the primary caregiver and effectively a single parent to his young child who had high needs and developmental issues. The sentencing judge observed that "it would not be good for this child's well-being or his development if his father were incarcerated".

[39] In R. v. Marrier, 2023 ONSC 5194, the offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. While being chased by police Mr. Marrier threw a satchel containing a loaded gun into a backyard. He was 19 years old at the time he committed the offence. By the time of his sentencing, he had spent over 4 years on house arrest with electronic monitoring. The sentencing judge found that there was a connection between Mr. Marier's life experience with anti-Black racism and his decision to commit the offence.

[40] In R. v. Carter, 2021 ONCJ 561, the offender was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of importing prohibited firearm parts and possessing a prohibited firearm. Mr. Carter had no criminal record and was a 50-year-old college professor. His hobbies were gun collecting and target shooting. He was licensed to possess a restricted firearm but not a prohibited firearm. He ordered two selector switches whose function is to convert a semi-automatic firearm to fully automatic functionality. The court observed that the offences did not involve a weapon in a public place, a loaded weapon or any criminality beyond the conversion to a fully automatic gun. The court also found that likelihood of recidivism was "virtually inconceivable".

[41] In R. v. Meinzinger, the offender was sentenced to a 2 year less one day conditional sentence for possession of a loaded gun and careless storage of a firearm. The causal link between the offender's mental health issues and his offences played a prominent role in the sentencing judge's decision. Mr. Meinzinger was a lawful gun owner. He left his residence with a loaded gun and texted his former partner messages expressing suicidal ideations and implying he intended a suicide by cop scenario. His remaining guns were left carelessly stored in his home. Police stopped the offender's vehicle without incident and arrested him. They found the loaded gun in a bag.

[42] In R. v. Vaillant, 2020 BCSC 1137, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, less 105 days for time served. The offender was involved a standoff with police. Mr. Vaillant committed his offences while suicidal and attempted to provoke police to shoot him. He engaged in a police standoff during which he stood outside the front entry to a cabin and waved a loaded .45-calibre semiautomatic pistol in the direction of RCMP officers who had arrived. Mr. Vaillant fired shots while police were on scene, including into the air, one into a TV inside the cabin, and another out the open front door of the cabin into the air. While the offender waved the firearm and his conduct was undoubtedly dangerous, the sentencing judge noted there was no evidence that the offender pointed the firearm at anyone (para. 89).

[43] The Crown referred me to the decision R. v. Badria, 2017 ONSC 5389. Mr. Badria was convicted of assault causing bodily harm on a police officer by striking her on the head with a sledgehammer and numerous other weapon offences arising from the same incident. The offender entered a police station and swung at an officer with his weapon, fortunately only striking a "glancing blow." A struggle with officers ensued during which police found a knife in Mr. Badria's pocket. Mr. Badria was schizophrenic and had been attempting to commit "suicide by cop." He had a dated criminal record for criminal harassment and failing to comply with probation. The victim suffered relatively minor physical injuries which likely occurred during the struggle with Mr. Badria. She was severely traumatized by the incident, however, and developed post-traumatic stress disorder. The Court accepted that Mr. Badria's mental illness played an important role in the commission of his offences, that he had remorse and had potential for rehabilitation. Mr. Badria was sentenced to a further 18 months in prison after having received credit for 3 years and 9 months of pre-sentence custody.

[44] Another case I reviewed was R. v. Takazo, 2017 NWTSC 81. Mr. Takazo pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while prohibited and pointing a firearm at a peace officer. He was suicidal and intoxicated at the time he committed his offences. He waved a firearm around while yelling that he needed help. He pointed the gun at himself and at a police truck where officers were. He continued to put the gun under his chin and yelled at the officers to take him out before eventually raising his arms in the air. Mr. Takazo had a prior record for an incident involving the discharge of a firearm. He suffered from a mental illness for which he had taken antipsychotic medication in the past. He was indigenous. He had attended a residential school, and both his parents were residential school survivors. The sentencing judge observed that "An attempt to force a police officer to use their weapon is basically an attempt to terrify another human being into taking a life". Mr. Takazo was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

[45] While attempting to achieve parity is a desirable objective, sentencing is a highly individualized process. Accordingly, sentencing ranges are meant to be seen as "primarily guidelines, and not hard and fast rules": R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 60.

The Appropriate Sentences in this Case

[46] There are significant mitigating circumstances and collateral consequences in this case which make rehabilitation and restraint important considerations. The causal connection between Mr. Robert's mental illness and his offences, his support in the community, his rehabilitative progress, and his expressions of remorse all substantially mitigate the sentence which would otherwise be appropriate in a case involving this type of conduct. In sentencing Mr. Robert I must exercise restraint particularly given his relative youth, his lack of a criminal record, and the collateral consequences at play.

[47] S. 718.02 of the Criminal Code directs that the court give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when imposing a sentence for the offences of assaulting a peace officer with a weapon. "Police officers hold positions for the protection of the public and are exposed to frequent and significant dangers in the course of their work": R v. Lamar, 2017 BCCA 228, at para. 27.

[48] The role of deterrence is tempered in the circumstances of this case given the role Mr. Robert's mental health issues played in his offences. While these issues reduce to some extent the level of denunciation required, I find that denunciation is still a predominant objective in this case. This is not a situation such as in Fabbro where the danger of the offender's conduct was much attenuated. Mr. Robert's conduct was very dangerous. Moreover, his offences have significantly impacted two victims.

[49] A conditional sentence is a legally available sanction for the offences Mr. Robert is being sentenced. The requirement for consecutive sentences does not preclude the imposition of multiple conditional sentences so long as the total sentence does not exceed two years: R. v. Frechette, 2001 MBCA 66, 154 C.C.C. (3d) 191 (Man. C.A.).

[50] The Crown does not seek a sentence of more than two years. Furthermore, I am satisfied that Mr. Robert serving a sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.

[51] I recognize that a conditional sentence with punitive conditions can address the objectives of deterrence and denunciation: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, at paras. 21 and 22. Having given the matter much consideration, I find that a conditional sentence would not be proportionate, given the gravity of the offences committed by Mr. Robert and his degree of responsibility. I therefore find that it would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

[52] Mr. Robert is being sentenced for multiple offences, some of which require consecutive sentences. The principle of totality requires I ensure that the cumulative sentence imposed does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42; Criminal Code, s. 718.2(c).

[53] Having regard to all the circumstances, I have determined that the total appropriate sentence in this case before credit for pre-sentence custody and time spent on bail is one year imprisonment. Mr. Robert spent 6 days in pre-sentence detention, for which he is entitled to 9 days credit. While Downes credit is generally conceptualized as a mitigating factor, it is not necessarily inappropriate to grant numerical credit "so long as it does not skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence": R. v. Lowe, 2025 ONCA 475, at para. 17; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733, at paras. 107-8, 112-4. In this case, I have decided to credit Mr. Robert 2 ½ months for his time spent on bail. The total remaining sentence to be served is therefore 9 months and 6 days.

[54] The sentence is broken down as follows:

• Count 1 – use imitation firearm: 3 months and 6 days, in addition to 6 days' time served to be credited for 9 days.
• Count 4 – assault with a weapon on P.C. Lang: 3 months consecutive.
• Count 6 – possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose: 3 months concurrent.
• Count 8 – point firearm at P.C. Vavasour: 3 months concurrent.
• Count 9 – assault with a weapon on P.C. Vavasour: 3 months consecutive.
• Count 10 – point firearm at Ms. Venedam: 3 months concurrent.

Probation and Ancillary Orders

[55] Following his release from custody Mr. Robert will be placed on probation for a period of two years with the following terms:

• In addition to the statutory terms, he is to report to a probation officer within 2 days of his release and thereafter as directed.
• He is to cooperate with his probation officer, including by signing any releases necessary to monitor his compliance with any condition on this order.
• He is to attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer for including, but not limited to:
  • Stress management and psychological issues.
• He shall sign any release of information forms as will enable his probation officer to monitor his attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
• He shall provide proof of his attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
• He shall not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code, including any firearm or imitation firearms.

[56] I also make an order that Mr. Robert provide a sample of his DNA. Furthermore, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, there will be a weapons prohibition for 5 years.

[57] The victim fine surcharge is waived in all the circumstances.

Released: October 3, 2025

Signed: Justice Joseph Hanna