Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: November 3, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto # 24 4810 9845

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Jamar Jacque-Frame

Sentencing Judgment

Before: Justice Brock Jones

Heard on: May 20 and October 31, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 3, 2025

Counsel:

• D. Newton, for the Crown
• U. Kancharla, for Mr. Jacque-Frame

I. Introduction

[1] On May 20, 2025, Mr. Jacque-Frame pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery (Criminal Code section 343(d)); two counts of robbery (Criminal Code section 344(1)(b)); and two counts of administering a noxious substance with intent to aggrieve or annoy another person (Criminal Code section 245(1)(b)). The Crown proceeded by indictment on all charges.

[2] The Crown also read into the record facts from other robberies in which it was not seeking a guilty plea. Mr. Jacque-Frame acknowledged his role in these other robberies.

[3] I ordered a pre-sentence report ("PSR"). Sentencing was delayed for various reasons until October 31, 2025. On that date, the parties made their submissions. They jointly submitted a sentence of two years less credit for pre-sentence custody ("PSC"), but disagreed on how much credit he should be granted for the difficult conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre ("TSDC"). On Ms. Kancharla's submission, her client was in a time-served position. On Mr. Newton's submission, he would need to serve another 90 days or so.

[4] I informed them that I did not believe the proposed sentencing range was consistent with the existing authorities for carjacking cases, and I was considering imposing a harsher sentence than even the Crown had proposed. I invited them to make further submissions: see R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37, at paras. 43-50; R. v. England, 2024 ONCA 360, at para. 82.

[5] After being given time to consider the matter, Ms. Kancharla requested that I strike the plea. She stated that if she had known about my concerns earlier, she might have considered joining the Crown on a two-year joint position. I informed her that I was willing to consider this from both perspectives – the open position originally presented, and, alternatively, a reconsidered joint position of two years. She agreed with this approach.

[6] To be clear, the plea was not originally a joint position, as the parties did not agree on the credit that should be afforded for PSC based on the conditions at the TSDC (what is typically referred to as Duncan credit). In R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37, the Supreme Court of Canada described at para. 27 what constitutes a joint position (my emphasis added):

To be clear, a joint submission covers off every aspect of the sentence proposed. To the extent that the parties may agree to most, but not all, aspects of the sentence — be it the length or type of the sentence, or conditions, terms, or ancillary orders attached to it — the submission will not constitute a joint submission. The public interest test does not apply to bits and pieces of a sentence upon which the parties are in agreement; it applies across the board, or not at all.

[7] However, even applying the strict test for rejecting a joint submission, as I will explain, I find the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I recognize that certainty in plea negotiations is vital to the proper functioning of the courts, and that joint positions should only be rejected in rare cases: see R. v. Harasuik, 2023 ONCA 594, at para. 22. Nevertheless, I find that an informed and reasonable person would view the newly proposed joint submission as demonstrating a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system: see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, at para. 42.

[8] These are my reasons for imposing an alternative sentence.

II. Facts In Support of the Guilty Pleas

Robbery #1

[9] On Saturday, November 11, 2023, at approximately 7:03 PM, Malkiat Sekon was parked at the Yorkdale Shopping Centre located at 3401 Dufferin St, Toronto, in his green 2022 Lamborghini Urus. At that time, the victim's infant son was asleep in the back seat.

[10] The accused and an unknown male suddenly opened the driver and passenger doors of the Lamborghini. Mr. Jacque-Frame pressed a sharp object wrapped in a cloth against the victim's ribs. He told the victim, "Get out of the car right now." The unknown male accomplice attacked the victim's face with a substance believed to be pepper spray. The victim complied, exited the Lamborghini with his child, and fled the area. He then contacted the police.

[11] When returning to the scene of the robbery, the victim saw that his Lamborghini had been involved in a collision in the parking lot and was abandoned. Both suspects fled the area before the police arrived.

[12] The robbery was captured on security cameras at Yorkdale Shopping Centre. Mr. Jacque-Frame had a distinct appearance, standing approximately 6'5" tall and wearing red and purple high-top shoes. A forensic examination of the Lamborghini was completed, resulting in the collection of a DNA sample, which was submitted for analysis. On February 28, 2024, Mr. Jacque-Frame was identified through a match in the National DNA database.

Robbery #2

[13] On Monday, November 13, 2023, around 6:29 PM, Irina Sukhova was parked at Yorkdale Shopping Centre, located at 3401 Dufferin St, Toronto, in her red 2022 Audi Q3. Mr. Jacque-Frame and an unknown male suddenly opened both the driver's and passenger's doors of the Audi. They demanded the victim exit her vehicle. One of the suspects sprayed a substance, believed to be pepper spray, into the victim's face.

[14] The victim was able to start her vehicle, close her driver's side door and flee the area. The victim immediately contacted the police.

[15] The incident was captured on security cameras at Yorkdale Shopping Centre.

[16] The parties agreed Mr. Jacque-Frame intended to steal the victim's vehicle, which establishes a robbery pursuant to Criminal Code section 343(c).

Robbery #3

[17] On Tuesday, November 14, 2023, at approximately 4:55 PM, Qamar Mirza was parked on the street in Toronto in his black 2012 Mercedes-Benz ML350.

[18] Mr. Jacque-Frame and an unidentified male approached the driver's side door of the Mercedes-Benz and knocked on the window. The victim ignored them. One of the males used an unknown object to smash the driver's side window and open the door. They demanded the victim exit the vehicle and surrender the car keys. The victim stated he did not have the car keys.

[19] A witness, Ashlee Haynes, was walking nearby and heard shouting. The witness managed to take a photo of the suspects at the driver's side of the Mercedes-Benz. The suspects fled the area and were seen entering a vehicle; the witness photographed it as it left.

[20] The parties agreed Mr. Jacque-Frame intended to steal the victim's vehicle, which establishes a robbery pursuant to Criminal Code section 343(c).

Additional Facts Presented By The Crown

No Arraignment - Robbery #4

[21] On Friday, November 10, 2023, at around 2:00 PM, Edward Bloomer was standing on his driveway in Etobicoke. His wife's white 2020 BMW X5 was parked in the driveway.

[22] Mr. Jacque-Frame and an unidentified male approached the victim. Mr. Jacque-Frame told him, "Give me the keys to the BMW." He then tried to remove the car keys from the victim's pocket. The victim managed to pull away and run towards his home. Mr. Jacque-Frame and his accomplice chased after him. Mr. Jacque-Frame sprayed an unknown substance at the victim, hitting him in the back and around the doorway of the home. The suspects fled the scene.

[23] The incident was recorded on security cameras in the area. Mr. Jacque-Frame and his accomplice were shown on the footage walking up the driveway and attempting to rob the victim.

No Arraignment - Robbery #5

[24] On Tuesday, November 14, 2023, around 5:15 PM, Lesley Reuben was parked on the street in Toronto in her black 2020 Mercedes-Benz SUV.

[25] Mr. Jacque-Frame approached the driver's side door and tried to open it. The door was locked. He then used an unknown object to smash the driver's-side window and open the door. He forced the victim out of the vehicle and demanded she hand over the car keys. He stole her iPhone from her hand.

[26] An unidentified male entered the Mercedes-Benz and tried to start it, but he was unsuccessful. The victim started screaming for help, and community members began coming outside onto the street. The suspects were seen entering a grey or silver SUV and leaving the scene.

[27] The incident was captured on security cameras in the area.

No Arraignment – Robbery #6

[28] On November 14, 2023, at approximately 2:40 p.m., Bai Kui was in his parked 2022 BMW X5 in Toronto. Mr. Jacque-Frame and an unidentified man approached the BMW and opened the driver's side door. They demanded the car keys. Mr. Kui told them he did not have the keys. One of the suspects punched him three times in the face and stole his watch. They then fled the area.

III. Victim Impact Statements

[29] Mr. Sekon provided a victim impact statement, which I reproduce in this judgment.

The offender sprayed something toxic on me that suffocated me and caused my eyes to burn. Following this he poked something sharp in my side and sprayed again. During all this, my 2-year old was sleeping in the back-seat who woke up from the commotion. He was not covered well for the cold outside but the offender kept on threatening me to get out quick. So I took him out of the car and rushed towards the mall. Seeing masked men and then being hastily taken out uncovered in bitter cold in a fit of fear by his father impacted the child's mind deeply. He did not sit in that car again for one year. Now he seems to have forgotten the incident.

But I personally still do not feel safe driving in this car. For this reason, it is languishing in the garage and I am waiting for the lease term to expire when I can return it back to the dealer and feel safe again.

[30] Mr. Edward Bloomer also chose to provide a victim impact statement. I reproduce that statement as well.

For decades I have lived in this quiet and tranquil neighbourhood where my children have also grown up. I used to come out to do gardening, clean the yard, etc without ever thinking twice about it.

That is, until one afternoon when a man and his accomplice approached me from behind and demanded that I give him the keys to my car. During this attempted car theft, I was shoved, physically attacked and pepper sprayed. It all happened so fast and my family, who was home at the time of the incident, heard the commotion and feared for my safety. As a result, they too have been victimized and have been mentally and emotionally scarred by this crime.

Since this assault, we are constantly looking over our shoulder and checking the surrounding area every time we walk out of the house or are returning home. We get anxious and apprehensive now when we see strangers on our street. I have since purchased and installed video surveillance because we no longer feel safe.

This was an unprovoked and senseless attack. This brazen assault occurred in broad daylight and has left myself and my family mentally and emotionally traumatized.

[31] Mr. Newton informed me during the sentencing hearing that another victim, Ms. Reuben, was too afraid from her experience to even provide a victim impact statement.

IV. Prior Youth Court Record

[32] Mr. Jacque-Frame has a prior youth record that will lose the YCJA protections associated with it due to the convictions he receives today: see YCJA section 119(9). The record includes the following youth findings of guilt.

[33] On September 20, 2021, he was found guilty of two counts of robbery, seven counts of failing to comply with a release order, and one count of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He was sentenced to 15 months' probation, and a YCJA section 51(1) weapons prohibition order was imposed.

[34] On October 5, 2022, he was found guilty of sexual assault with a firearm, criminal harassment, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, failing to comply with a YCJA s. 51(1) order, and three counts of non-compliance with a youth probation order. He was sentenced to a one-year custody and supervision order, with credit given for six months spent in pre-sentence detention. He was also ordered to serve a 12-month youth probation order after completing his custody and supervision order. An additional YCJA s. 51(1) order was also imposed.

V. Pre-Sentence Report

[35] Mr. Jacque-Frame is 20 years old. He was 18 at the time of the offences.

[36] He was born in Montreal. He has two older brothers. His parents separated and he has not had any contact with his father since that occurred. He described a normal childhood with a positive, caring upbringing by his mother. He denied experiencing any problems in his formative years. He describes his mother now as his "best friend", and that he comes from a close-knit family.

[37] Regarding his education, Mr. Jacque-Frame dropped out of high school in grade 10. He later obtained a certificate later in culinary studies through a program he took while in youth custody. He aspires to become a chef. However, he has been unemployed since November 2023.

[38] He reported working in various roles between 2022 and 2023, such as a clothing warehouse facility and a car wash. He acknowledged that he was terminated from these positions due to non-attendance.

[39] He has never been diagnosed with a mental health concern.

[40] Mr. Jacque-Frame accepts responsibility for his actions. He admits he was motivated by financial gain.

[41] During his time in custody, he has completed anger management and life skills programs. The details of these programs were not provided to the court.

VI. Positions of the Parties

[42] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Newton argues that a two-year sentence is suitable, followed by three years of probation. He claims that Mr. Jacque-Frame is "lucky" that he was not a more successful thief, as in five of the cases, he failed to take the car from his victims. This somewhat reduces the severity of the offences.

[43] That being said, Mr. Newton argues that the impact on the victims cannot be overstated. The victim impact statements are powerful and highlight the profound effect these crimes had on them.

[44] The court should prioritize deterrence as a sentencing principle, since Mr. Jacque-Frame was motivated by a desire for "easy money." Mr. Newton presented statistics on auto-thefts in Ontario, which demonstrate a staggering number of cars were stolen in 2024. That too places these offences in an important context.

[45] The Crown's position, according to Mr. Newton, already takes into account the guilty pleas, the offender's expression of remorse, and the difficult conditions he has experienced at the TSDC.

[46] Ms. Kancharla submits that a two-year sentence, less a day, is appropriate. She agrees with the proposed length and terms of the probation order proposed by the Crown. Her client is a young Black man, and I should remember the importance of rehabilitation and restraint. She provided me with R. v. Ngabirano, 2023 ONSC 1706, a decision of Justice Gomery where she sentenced a youthful first-time offender to 90 days' jail, followed by 21 months of a conditional sentence order, and 18 months probation, for offences arguably of a similar nature.

[47] Ms. Kancharla submits that her client has much promise and a supportive family. The pre-sentence report was positive. He has endured great difficulty in pre-sentence custody and asked for enhanced credit accordingly. She pointed me to my own decision in R. v. Nanibush, 2024 ONCJ 181 and Justice Molloy's decision in R. v. Shaikh and Tanoli, 2024 ONSC 774, both of which comment on the nature of these conditions. She asked me to release her client on October 31, as he had effectively "done his time" if I were to award him extra credit accordingly.

[48] Finally, she submits that her client has a heart condition, as detailed in the medical records she filed as an exhibit. He should be released from custody as soon as possible so that he can follow up with a cardiologist for his condition.

VII. General Sentencing Principles

[49] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the "fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions."

[50] A sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender: Criminal Code section 718.1. A key factor in a court's analysis of moral blameworthiness is the consideration of the offender's personal characteristics: see R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12.

[51] The principles of general deterrence and denunciation should be emphasized when sentencing an offender for multiple counts of robbery, especially for acts of carjacking, as I will discuss. At the same time, Mr. Jacque-Frame is a young man, and I must also consider the importance of rehabilitation: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 123. Since he has resolved three counts of robbery and admitted to the facts regarding additional incidents, the totality principle, as outlined in s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, applies. This principle requires the sentencing court to ensure that when an offender receives consecutive sentences for multiple offences, the total sentence does not exceed their overall moral culpability. The sentence must not be excessive or "crushing," nor should it destroy nearly all hope for the offender's rehabilitation.

[52] Where the parties agree to include additional facts for sentencing purposes regarding charges the Crown has chosen not to pursue, those facts may be regarded as aggravating factors: see R. v. Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31; Criminal Code section 725(1)(c). As clarified by the Supreme Court in Di Paola, the "existence of this provision enables sentencing judges to have a fuller picture of the circumstances of the offence so that they can more accurately assess the gravity of the offence to be punished and the offender's degree of moral blameworthiness": see para. 47.

Armed Robberies, Aggravating Factors and Moral Culpability

[53] Robbery is a serious offence that involves the use of, or threat of, violence or force to steal property. Its seriousness only increases when a weapon is used to facilitate the offender's goals: see R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3, at para. 53.

[54] Carjacking is a particularly egregious form of robbery that remains a pressing concern for residents of this city. Over the years, multiple courts have emphasized the seriousness of this crime and the importance of imposing substantial sentences on those who commit it.

[55] In R. v. Noor, Justice Clarke sentenced a 19-year-old offender for robbery. The victim was driving alone at night when, while waiting at an intersection for the light to turn green, two men approached his car on foot. Mr. Noor entered through the passenger side door. His co-accused stood at the driver's door and demanded that Mr. Saeed relinquish his car. The co-accused threatened to shoot the victim if he did not comply. The driver obeyed, left the car, and Mr. Noor and his accomplice sped away. The accused was found guilty after a trial.

[56] Justice Clarke commented on the severity of carjacking at para. 22:

At the risk of stating the obvious, robbery is a very serious offence, as demonstrated by the fact that it is punishable by life imprisonment. Carjacking is a serious type of robbery. The average person enjoys a degree of privacy and, more importantly, feels a sense of security while travelling in his or her motor car, as opposed to walking or using public transport. Although not so sacrosanct as the expectation to be secure in one's own home, as the excerpts from the cases that follow make plain, the expectation to be able to travel about the community in safety in one's own vehicle is recognized as a fundamental value of Canadian society. This value is something to be assiduously fostered and protected.

[57] Despite his lack of a prior record at the time of the offence and his lesser role in the robbery, Justice Clarke imposed a sentence of 3.5 years less credit for pre-sentence custody.

[58] In R. v. Marzouk, 2021 ONCA 855, the appellant appealed a three-year sentence for robbery. The appellant met the victim at an agreed-upon location. The purpose of the meeting was to exchange funds. When he arrived at the meeting spot, the appellant entered the victim's vehicle, forced him to exit at gunpoint, and then drove away with the victim's car. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to two years less a day in custody, solely due to the appellant's demonstrated "excellent rehabilitative prospects": see para. 23. I note that this appeal involved one count of robbery, not six.

[59] In R. v. Cassanova-Alman, 2023 ONSC 1470, the offender was convicted of robbery. While attempting to evade the police for another offence, he located a four-door pickup truck with a family inside. He ran and leapt into the rear passenger seat of the truck. When the driver refused to help him, he climbed over the front seat and struggled with the driver, pushing him out of the truck. At the same time, uniformed officers approached the truck after hearing screaming from the driver's children. The offender tried to escape by driving the pickup at a high speed. Unbeknownst to him, the driver's eight-year-old daughter was still in the truck. As the police were pursuing him, he briefly stopped the truck and let the young girl out.

[60] He was 19 years old at the time of the offence. He had a youth record for two robberies. He had reasonably good prospects for rehabilitation. The Court imposed a three-year sentence for the carjacking robbery. At para. 50, the court noted that "carjacking is a particularly serious form of robbery given that people expect to be able to travel in safety and privacy in their own motor vehicles" and that "typically sentences for carjacking are from about three and a half to five years."

[61] In R. v. Francois, 2025 ONCA 177, Hourigan J.A., in his reasons deciding a motion for bail pending appeal, endorsed the comments of Justice Dawson in Cassanova-Alman: see para. 14.

[62] Very recently, in R. v. Sheikh, 2025 ONCJ 551, Justice Porter imposed a sentence of two years less a day in jail for an offender found guilty of one count of robbery related to a carjacking incident. The accused was a young, first-time offender who was on bail at the time for serious charges. He approached a green Mazda while the driver was waiting at an intersection to make a left turn. Mr. Sheikh walked up to the vehicle, opened the driver's side door, and told the victim to "get out of the car, or I'll shoot you." He then forced his way into the vehicle while the victim was still in the driver's seat. He fled the scene, travelling west until he collided with a white BMW, causing minor damage.

[63] In this case, the aggravating factors related to these robberies are clear and numerous. Mr. Jacque-Frame or his accomplice used a weapon against the victims. He committed six acts of robbery (or attempted robbery), even though he pleaded guilty to three. He put all his victims' safety at risk. While the Crown acknowledged it could not prove he knew a young child was in the back seat of the vehicle stolen on November 11, 2023, at the Yorkdale Shopping Centre, anyone who commits carjacking knows there is always a chance that someone else is in the car apart from the driver. It is entirely predictable that children could be in the back seat or the passenger seat and not be easily visible from the outside. Furthermore, when he did become aware that Mr. Sekon had a child in the car, he continued with the robbery regardless, rather than aborting his plan. That was yet another choice, and one that significantly increases his moral culpability for that incident.

[64] Likewise, it was entirely foreseeable that Mr. Bloomer's family members would have seen him being threatened and nearly robbed, which would have caused them distress as well. The harm caused to victims of these offences goes beyond any physical injuries they may suffer. As described in both victim impact statements, Mr. Jacque-Frame caused his victims and others severe emotional distress. Mr. Sekon's child was scared and refused to enter the car again. Mr. Bloomer's family no longer feel safe in their own neighbourhood. I have no doubt that the victims of the other robberies would also have been terrified by their experiences. Mr. Jacque-Frame inflicted significant psychological harm on all his victims, in addition to physically harming some of them. This is another aggravating factor: see Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(iii.1).

[65] I emphasize that an offender does not need to foresee with certainty every possible negative consequence of their crimes to bear responsibility for them. The predictable results of a crime can be considered when evaluating an offender's moral culpability: R. v. O'Leary, 2017 ONCA 71, at para. 33.

[66] Mr. Jacque-Frame also caused property damage by smashing the windows of the cars for the victims who did not initially comply with his demands. More concerning, he or his accomplice drove the stolen Lamborghini at the highly populated Yorkdale Shopping Centre during their escape and crashed it. This not only caused additional property damage but could also have seriously harmed anyone nearby. It was reckless and extremely dangerous.

[67] The robberies were planned. Each time, he targeted a luxury vehicle. He committed these crimes for personal profit, with callous disregard for the safety of his victims.

[68] He was also subject to a youth probation order at the time of these robberies. That probation order was part of a lengthy youth sentence, which was imposed as a result of his committing another crime of serious personal violence involving the use of a weapon.

[69] Mr. Jacque-Frame's moral culpability for each of these robberies is therefore extremely high. He carefully selected his victims when they were defenceless and vulnerable. Although he does not have an adult prior record, he has recent related findings of guilt as a young person for crimes of violence and the use of a weapon. While youth records do not carry the same weight as adult ones (see, for example, R. v. Nguyen, 2025 ONSC 2255, at paras. 13-14), he had been warned by these youth courts in the past that crimes of violence can lead to custodial sentences. Indeed, he committed these robberies as an adult shortly after the community supervision component of his last youth sentence came to a conclusion.

Mitigating Factors, Rehabilitation and Restraint

[70] Mr. Jacque-Frame pleaded guilty, which spared the victims and witnesses from having to testify. He has taken responsibility for his offences and expressed a desire to live a crime-free life in the future. He has a supportive family, although the author of the PSR was unable to contact them. These are important mitigating factors.

[71] Importantly, he is a very young man. In R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, C.J. Tulloch wrote about the importance of sentencing courts appreciating the reduced maturity of youthful adult offenders at paras. 30-33:

The courts respect the need to hold young adults accountable for serious crimes that, … involve significant personal violence. The courts must denounce the actions of young adults who commit these offences and impose sentences that, to the extent possible, adequately deter them from reoffending. General deterrence also gains importance. Due to these offences' gravity and public safety risks, significant prison terms may be necessary.

Sentencing judges must also respect several other settled principles when sentencing youthful offenders for their first criminal offence. First, they must practice restraint. This requires them to avoid imprisoning young adults when possible. When imprisonment is necessary, it also requires them to make the sentence as short as possible to achieve the principles and objectives of sentencing. See Priest, at pp. 544-546. Second, they must prioritize rehabilitation as the paramount sentencing objective. Where necessary, they must also prioritize specific deterrence. See Brown, at paras. 5 and 10. Third, they cannot focus exclusively on denunciation and general deterrence or elevate those objectives above rehabilitation and specific deterrence. See Borde, at para. 36; Brown, at para. 7. Fourth, they must consider young adults' reduced moral culpability and the harsher impact that incarceration causes them due to their stage of life.

The courts have long followed these principles because they protect society, which Parliament has made the fundamental purpose of sentencing. Because young adults are still maturing, they have "high rehabilitative prospects." See Bertrand Marchand, at para. 152. Often, the shock of arrest and conviction is a turning point that leads them to reflect on their actions, avoid crime, and choose a pro-social path. Prioritizing rehabilitation thus helps protect society by preventing reoffending.

[72] During submissions, Ms. Kancharla asked me to consider the application of R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680. Morris requires sentencing courts to consider evidence that may attenuate the moral blameworthiness of the offender based on his life experiences. Here, no such evidence was presented. The PSR did not speak to Mr. Jacque-Frame's experience with systemic racism. I am willing to take judicial notice that as a young Black man in Canada, he would have almost inevitably have had some negative experiences of this nature, and that social context evidence plays an important role in fashioning an appropriate sentence for a young man: see R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23, at paras. 162-8. But I cannot speculate. I must approach this submission with caution, although I recognize that as an 18-year-old at the time of these robberies, his moral culpability must be carefully assessed regardless, as "[f]ull maturity and all the attributes of adulthood are not magically conferred on young [adults] on their 18th birthdays": see Habib at para. 35.

[73] Ms. Kancharla further argued that her client's physical health concerns must be factored into my decision. She submitted a four-page document, consisting of medical records from a hospital in Quebec, about her client's heart problems. No witness was called to explain the contents of these records, and no medical professional testified to provide an opinion about Mr. Jacque-Frame's condition at this time. Moreover, no evidence was presented in any form that Mr. Jacque-Frame's health care needs cannot be adequately met while he remains in custody.

[74] Assuming that Mr. Jacque-Frame has ongoing concerns regarding his physical health that require regular medical care and attention (and the evidence in that regard is spartan at best), I note that such a fact alone does not justify a departure from an otherwise applicable sentencing range. In R. v. LaCombe, 2023 ONSC 1975, Justice Dawson held at para. 36:

As a matter of general principle, when an accused has a health problem which is not life threatening, it may be considered as a mitigating factor but will not justify a departure from the usual range of sentence in the absence of evidence that it cannot be treated within a custodial institution.

[75] Mr. Jacque-Frame has accumulated 426 days of pre-sentence custody, which, with Summers' credit, is the equivalent of 639 days. Ms. Kancharla filed lockdown records that demonstrate Mr. Jacque-Frame has been subject to both partial and full lockdowns while he has been in custody at the TSDC. I am also willing to take judicial notice that the ongoing practice of triple-bunking at that institution, which was implemented earlier this year, remains in effect. I will also take judicial notice of the very difficult conditions there more generally, as has been detailed in many reported decisions of this court and the Superior Court of Justice. This is a mitigating factor that must also be considered when making my decision. But it cannot be allowed to overwhelm my analysis nor produce an unjust result.

VIII. Conclusion

[76] Even considering Mr. Jacque-Frame's status as a youthful adult offender, the position of two years is unacceptably low. While I appreciate the Crown's attempt to be merciful and considerate of Mr. Jacque-Frame's personal circumstances and potential for rehabilitation, the proposed sentence is divorced from the objective gravity of Mr. Jacque-Frame's crimes, his extreme moral culpability and the enormous harm these offences have had not only on their victims, but the community at large. Mr. Jacque-Frame committed six robberies or attempted robberies of entirely innocent people. He or his accomplice used weapons in several of them. During one robbery, a young child was exposed to unnecessary violence, which had a lasting psychological impact on them. Mr. Jacque-Frame had a lengthy youth record and was subject to a youth probation order at the time. He is a tall, strong young man whose physical presence would have been very intimidating to anyone whom he accosted. And he committed all his crimes out of pure greed.

[77] His robberies demonstrate an escalation of dangerous activity. He appears to have learned nothing from the youth sentences he received for his prior crimes of violence. He has demonstrated little commitment to his rehabilitation thus far, having breached court orders as a youth and young adult. The completion of some programming in custody since his arrest is a good start. But it is only a start.

[78] Carjacking is an extremely dangerous offence, one that requires emphatic condemnation from the courts. It is an offence that grips the public consciousness and is far too prevalent in Toronto. This underscores the need for general deterrence in this case. Offenders who commit this offence must know they will face serious punishment. In addition, I find that Mr. Jacque-Frame must also be specifically deterred from engaging in further criminal activity. His unabated record of violent crimes, including those committed with weapons, over the last few years is startling for someone so young.

[79] Despite his stated intention to obey court orders in the future, his track record to date suggests that he will not do so once released from custody. I find he is at a high risk of re-offending, absent significant intervention. A court's assessment of future dangerousness is relevant to how different sentencing principles are weighed and the ultimate determination of a fit and just sentence: see R. v. Holder, 2023 ONCA 688, at para. 28.

[80] The restraint principle is of increased importance when sentencing a first-time youthful offender: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, 2025 SCC 33, at para. 96. Sentencing judges "should seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction": see, for example, R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729, at para. 80; and R. v. Wright, 2024 ONCA 516, at para. 19. But the restraint principle is not a barrier to the imposition of a lengthy sentence where both specific and general deterrence call out for one; rather, it operates to restrain the length of the sentence to the minimum necessary, but nothing more: see R. v. Shah, 2020 ONSC 6487, at para. 13. When sentencing young adults, it must be remembered that as important as this principle is, Parliament has not established a separate sentencing regime for them akin to the very different sentencing regime found in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c.1 for young persons.

[81] Standing alone, the proposed two-year sentence would have been very low for any one of these robberies. However, the facts of these six robberies make it markedly clear how woefully inadequate the proposed sentence is and how it fails to address the fundamental principle of proportionality. It simply would not respond to the offender's high degree of moral blameworthiness that he repeatedly displayed, and it would cause any reasonable member of the public to lose confidence in the administration of justice. Indeed, each robbery is arguably deserving of a three-year sentence, which would produce a global sentence of nine years even if I restricted my analysis to the incidents for which guilty pleas were entered.

[82] A global sentence of five years in prison is required in this case. But for the guilty pleas, and Mr. Jacque-Frame's youth, a sentence of six years or more would have been entirely justifiable. After crediting him for his pre-sentence custody of 639 days, and considering the difficult conditions he experienced at the TSDC, I impose a three-year sentence today on the robbery count against Mr. Sekon. I impose concurrent sentences of two years on each of the other robbery counts. A six-month sentence for the two charges of administering a noxious substance will be imposed on each of those counts, concurrent with each other and the robbery counts. I have apportioned the sentences in this manner to respect the totality principle.

[83] While a significant sentence for a young man, it is justified and not excessive. I recognize that the Supreme Court of Canada has reminded sentencing courts that "the experience of prison is likely to be particularly harmful to a young adult": see Senneville, at para. 106. As Mr. Jacque-Frame is black, I am also mindful of the unfortunate disadvantages black men may experience in the federal correctional system, including achieving parole eligibility: see R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, at para. 105. My conclusion remains that to meet the fundamental principle of proportionality and to protect the public, the sentence is necessary. Mr. Jacque-Frame will ultimately be better served in a federal penitentiary than a provincial jail. The Correctional Service of Canada will be able to develop programming and a reintegration plan for him, which is necessary to reduce his risk of further offending.

[84] On the discretionary portion of a section 109 weapons prohibition order, I impose the order for 10 years.

[85] A DNA order is mandatory as robbery is a primary designated offence.

[86] I waive the victim fine surcharge on all counts.

[87] I issue an order under Criminal Code section 743.21 that the offender has no contact while in custody with the following persons:

1. Malkiat Sekon
2. Edward Bloomer
3. Irina Sukhova
4. Bai Kui
5. Qamar Mirza
6. Lesley Reuben

Released: November 3, 2025

Signed: Justice Brock Jones

Footnotes

[1] See also R. v. H.S., 2014 ONCA 323, at paras. 37-38.

[2] At the same time, I did not receive any specific evidence of how the conditions at the TSDC have affected Mr. Jacque-Frame (for example, through an affidavit of the offender), which limits the weight I can place on this mitigating factor.

[3] For the incidents where pleas were not entered, I am further mindful that where the facts disclose events more akin to an attempted robbery, Criminal Code section 463(a) establishes that the maximum sentence is lessened from life to 14 years if there had been a finding of guilt. That, in turn, distinguishes the objective gravity Parliament associates with attempted robberies.