Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2025-01-14
Court File No.: 22 50004400, 22 50004337 and 24 23106498
Location: 10 Armoury St., OCJ-Toronto
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Travis Hinds
Before Justice Joseph Callaghan
Guilty pleas entered on April 9, 2024, and September 26, 2024
Sentencing submissions heard on December 3, 2024
Reasons for Sentence released on January 14, 2025
Counsel for the Crown: E. Evans / I. Islow
Counsel for Travis Hinds: K. Vakili
Introduction
J. Callaghan J.:
[1] On April 9, 2024, after hearing several days of evidence during the scheduled preliminary inquiry in this matter, Travis Hinds pleaded guilty to five counts of armed robbery and one count of possessing a loaded restricted firearm.
[2] Sentencing was adjourned multiple times for Mr. Hinds to waive in additional charges from London, Ontario for resolution. In addition, Mr. Vakili, counsel for Mr. Hinds, expressed his intention to seek an enhanced pre-sentence report, otherwise known as a Morris report.
[3] On September 26, 2024, Mr. Hinds pleaded guilty to the London charges: one additional count of armed robbery, one count of aggravated assault and one count of discharge firearm with intent to endanger life. Subsequently, this additional armed robbery count was amended to attempt armed robbery. Sentencing was adjourned for the preparation of an enhanced pre-sentence report. Ultimately, Mr. Vakili advised that, given the lengthy delay for the preparation of such a report, he chose not to seek a Morris report and relied on the PSR filed as Exhibit 2.
[4] On December 3, 2024, I heard submissions on sentence and the following exhibits were filed:
- USB containing video clips of the robberies, including the London attempt robbery
- Pre-sentence report (PSR) prepared by Radika Koneswaran dated September 26, 2024
- Statistics Canada fact sheet dated January 30, 2024
- Letter from employer Zhi Li dated September 25, 2024
- Article: “Does imprisonment deter: a review of the evidence”
- Article: “Effect of Imprisonment on Criminal Behaviour”
- Letter from Chrisann Hinds (sister of Mr. Hinds) dated December 2, 2024
Facts and Circumstances of the Offences
[5] I will go through the facts and circumstances of Mr. Hinds’ offences in chronological order.
Toronto Region: Armed Robbery of Yat Lee Jewellery (Kwok Chow)
[6] On July 12, 2022, at approximately 5:53 PM, Mr. Hinds participated in the planned armed robbery of the Yat Lee Jewellery store, located in the busy Agincourt Mall.
[7] Mr. Hinds and two others, while wearing gloves and masks, with their heads covered, arrived with the necessary tools to commit an armed robbery. They entered the jewellery store wielding hammers with which to smash the glass display cabinets and bags with which to take the stolen watches and jewelry. No firearm was used in this robbery.
[8] Two employees were working in the store at the time of the robbery and one customer was present.
[9] Mr. Hinds and his two accomplices smashed numerous glass cases and managed to grab a quantity of jewelry and watches and then ran back through the mall and parking lot to a parked stolen Infiniti G35 and drove away.
Toronto Region: Armed Robbery of Daniel Watches & Jewellery Co. Ltd. (Choi-Sun LAM)
[10] One day later (July 13, 2022), at approximately 5:33 PM, Mr. Hinds and two other men participated in the planned armed robbery of Daniel Watches & Jewellery Company, located in the community hub of the Albion Mall.
[11] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices, while wearing gloves and masks, with their heads covered, arrived with the necessary tools to commit an armed robbery. They entered the jewellery store wielding hammers with which to smash the glass display cabinets and bags with which to take the stolen goods.
[12] During this robbery, Mr. Hinds brandished a handgun. Two employees were working in the store at the time of the robbery and one customer was present.
[13] Mr. Hinds and his two accomplices smashed numerous glass cases and managed to grab a quantity of jewelry and cash and then ran back through the mall and parking lot to a parked stolen Infiniti G35 and drove away.
[14] Members of the public can be seen on surveillance video running and hiding for safety.
Toronto Region: Armed Robbery of Bellagio Jewellers (Rajesh Chugh)
[15] One week later, on July 20, 2022, at approximately 8:10 PM, Mr. Hinds and three other men participated in the planned armed robbery of Bellagio Jewellers, located in the busy Oshawa Centre.
[16] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices, while wearing gloves and masks, with their heads covered, arrived with the necessary tools to commit an armed robbery. They entered the jewellery store wielding hammers with which to smash the glass display cabinets and bags with which to take the stolen goods.
[17] Three employees were working in the store at the time of the robbery. A customer was also present. Mr. Hinds brandished a handgun and pointed it one of the victims with whom he proceeded to the back area of the store.
[18] Mr. Hinds and his two accomplices smashed numerous glass cases and managed to grab a quantity of jewelry and Mr. Chugh’s wallet containing $2,000 in cash and then ran back through the mall and parking lot to a parked stolen Infiniti G35 and drove away.
[19] Members of the public can be seen on surveillance video running for safety.
London: Attempt Armed Robbery of Riham Kamel, Aggravated Assault and Discharge Firearm with Intent
[20] One week later, on July 27, 2022, Mr. Hinds and his accomplices were in an Acura vehicle that had been stolen in Pickering the night before. From their position in the parking lot, they observed the victim Riham Kamel exit his store, RK Forever Jewellers and get into his red Porsche vehicle in the parking lot.
[21] As he did so, the four males exited the Acura and approached Mr. Kamel in his Porsche. One of the males, Mr. Hinds, had a loaded handgun in his right hand. Mr. Hinds grabbed the door handle with his left hand and pointed the handgun at Mr. Kamel and demanded that he open the door. While this occurred, the other three males surrounded the Porsche and the driver of the get-away vehicle pulled in front of the Porsche, in an attempt to block Mr. Kamel from driving.
[22] Mr. Kamel put the Porsche in gear and pulled forward, and as he did so, Mr. Hinds intentionally fired the handgun. The bullet struck Mr. Kamel below his left arm and ended up behind one of his lungs, missing his heart by a narrow margin. Mr. Kamel was able to drive around the Acura and Mr. Hinds and his accomplices, who then re-entered the Acura and fled the area.
[23] Mr. Kamel had to undergo surgery to have the bullet removed.
Toronto Region: Armed Robbery of White Carat Jewellery Store (Sachin Gehlot)
[24] Two weeks later, on August 10, 2022, at approximately 4:48 PM, Mr. Hinds and two other men participated in the planned armed robbery of White Carat Jewellery Store, located in the busy Erin Mills Town Centre.
[25] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices, while wearing gloves and masks, with their heads covered, arrived with the necessary tools to commit an armed robbery. They entered the jewellery store wielding hammers with which to smash the glass display cabinets and bags with which to take the stolen goods.
[26] Four employees were working in the store at the time of the robbery. Mr. Hinds brandished a handgun and pointed it at the victims, making orders of them. He pushed Nishan Sahib Singh, the uniform security guard, and forced him at gunpoint to kneel on the ground.
[27] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices smashed numerous glass cases and managed to grab a quantity of jewelry and cash, then ran back through the mall and parking lot to a parked Honda Civic and drove away.
[28] Members of the public can be seen on surveillance video running for safety.
Toronto Region: Armed Robbery of KDM Jewellery (Debra Burkus)
[29] On September 14, 2022, at approximately 4:48 PM, Mr. Hinds and three other men participated in the planned armed robbery of KDM Jewellery Store, located in the busy Sherway Gardens shopping mall.
[30] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices, while wearing gloves and masks, with their heads covered, arrived with the necessary tools to commit an armed robbery. They entered the jewellery store wielding hammers with which to smash the glass display cabinets and bags with which to take the stolen goods.
[31] Ms. Burkus was working alone at the time of the robbery. Mr. Hinds made demands of Ms. Burkus while brandishing a handgun. One of his accomplices pointed a second handgun at her, holding it close to her body and head.
[32] Mr. Hinds and his two accomplices smashed numerous glass cases and managed to grab a quantity of jewelry and then ran back through the mall and parking lot to a parked stolen Acura SUV and drove away.
[33] Members of the public can be seen on surveillance video running for safety.
Toronto Region: Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm
[34] On Monday, October 3, 2022, Mr. Hinds and two male accomplices attended at the Shops on Yonge Street in Markham. They wore masks, gloves and wore their hoods pulled tight over their heads.
[35] Mr. Hinds and his accomplices came prepared to commit another robbery. They brought with them the necessary tools with which to conduct another robbery, including hammers with which to smash the glass cases and bags to carry the stolen jewellery.
[36] The victim, Mr. Ghasamboland was working inside the Bolandian Jewellery store when he saw Mr. Hinds and his accomplices arrive inside the mall wearing their disguises. He was aware that a robbery had occurred at another jewellery store in the same mall just two weeks prior, so he was on high alert.
[37] As Mr. Hinds and his accomplices approached his store, Mr. Ghasamboland began yelling “call the cops, call the cops”. As this occurred, Mr. Hinds and his accomplices quickly turned around and exited the mall and entered a Lexus SUV that was waiting for them at the mall entrance.
[38] At about 4 PM on the same date, Mr. Hinds and his accomplices were arrested by the Toronto Police in a high-risk take down. At this time, Mr. Hinds was seated in the rear middle seat and had in his possession, beneath his feet and easily accessible to him, a Ruger 57 calibre semi-automatic handgun which was loaded with 16 rounds of ammunition.
Impact on the Victims
[39] The harmful consequences of using a restricted or prohibited firearm in a robbery are readily understood. There is the risk of death or life-altering physical injury for victims and bystanders if the weapon is discharged. This risk became reality when Mr. Hinds shot Mr. Kamel when attempting to rob him.
Riham Kamel
[40] Given the terrifying circumstances of the attack on him, I appreciate why Mr. Kamel has chosen not to provide a victim impact statement (VIS).
[41] Despite Mr. Kamel not providing a VIS, I can easily conclude that being robbed at gunpoint while trapped in the driver’s seat of his car would have been extremely traumatic.
[42] Then, while attempting to flee for his life, having that gun fired at him, just missing his heart, would have been emotionally and psychologically devastating. This is in addition to the severe physical consequences of being shot by Mr. Hinds.
[43] The bullet ended up behind one of his lungs, missing his heart by a narrow margin. Mr. Kamel had to have surgery to remove the bullet.
[44] Unfortunately, I have not been provided with an update to Mr. Kamel’s health.
Jewellery Store Salespeople
[45] Having the store invaded by masked men wielding hammers would have been a terrifying event. For five of the robberies, the victims faced the added danger of being confronted by at least one gun-wielding invader. While none of the victims have chosen to file a victim impact statement, it is expected that the brazen, daylight armed robberies in which Mr. Hinds participated would have had a significant emotional and psychological impact on the employees who were working and on the customers who were present at the time of the robberies. Even if the weapon was not fired – as was the case with five of the robbery offences - exposure to this threat carries the risk of profound psychological harm. [See R. v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 at para. 54]
[46] All of these robberies took place in busy malls, at times when many people were present. As the surveillance videos demonstrate, numerous other mall patrons, who can be seen running and hiding, were impacted by the actions of Mr. Hinds and his accomplices.
Positions of the Parties
[47] Ms. Islow, on behalf of the Crown is seeking a 6-year global jail sentence for the five Toronto robberies and the s. 95 offence. In addition, she seeks an 8-year concurrent jail sentence for the London offences, which resulted in Mr. Kamel being shot by Mr. Hinds. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, a s. 109 order for life and a forfeiture order in relation to the seized handgun and ammunition.
[48] While fairly recognizing the mitigating factors in this case, Ms. Islow argued that given the number of serious offences committed by Mr. Hinds, with highly aggravating facts, a global sentence of less than eight years would fail to adequately reflect the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
[49] Mr. Vakili, on behalf of Mr. Hinds, has argued that a global sentence of 6 years is appropriate. He takes no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
[50] While reasonably acknowledging the highly aggravating facts of Mr. Hinds’ offences, Mr. Vakili highlighted the mitigating factors including Mr. Hinds’ guilty pleas and the fact that he is a very young man without a prior criminal record.
Background of Travis Hinds
[51] Travis Hinds is a 24-year-old young man with no prior criminal record.
[52] He was born in Jamaica and was adopted on the day of his birth by his mother Karen Adelson and her then partner. When Mr. Hinds was 2 years old, Ms. Adelson and Mr. Hinds’ adoptive father separated.
[53] Ms. Adelson works as an Assistant manager at a hotel in Quebec, where she lives. Mr. Hinds’ adoptive father lives in the United States where he owns a trucking company.
[54] The family moved to Quebec from Jamaica in 2018. Mr. Hinds lived with his mother and sister until he was 18, when he moved in with his grandmother. At age 21, Mr. Hinds moved out to live on his own in Toronto. It was after this move when Mr. Hinds’ criminal behaviour began.
[55] Mr. Hinds became engaged with a crowd who committed crimes to support a lifestyle he could not afford. This desire for quick financial gain led Mr. Hinds to commit the offences to which he has pleaded guilty.
[56] Mr. Hinds did not complete his high school education due to the language barrier when he arrived in Quebec from Jamaica and the challenges of online schooling during the Covid pandemic. In addition, Mr. Hinds’ ADHD diagnosis was insufficiently supported.
[57] In high school, Mr. Hinds was stabbed in the leg when he confronted someone who had taken his wallet.
[58] Mr. Hinds’ first paid employment began at age 14 working for a mechanic, and then for two years, he worked with horses and as an animal caretaker. Mr. Hinds is currently employed at the same hotel that employs his mother. He works as a cleaner and his employer described him as “a reliable, hard worker” who gets along with his co-workers.
[59] Mr. Hinds has expressed a desire to complete his high school education.
[60] In speaking with the author of the pre-sentence report, Mr. Hinds was described as cooperative, respectful, and engaged.
[61] Mr. Hinds maintains a good and supportive relationship with his mother and sister as well as his intimate partner, Ms. Baskaraca. Indeed, they are all present in court today, along with other supporters of Mr. Hinds.
[62] Mr. Hinds was described as empathetic by his mother, who pointed to his work with animals in Jamaica. Unfortunately, this empathy was completely missing when he committed the offences before me.
[63] While the PSR suggests that Mr. Hinds has started to develop some insight into his offending behaviour, it is clear to me he has a long way to go before he understands the seriousness of his criminal behaviour and the real the harm he has caused. I have serious concerns about Mr. Hinds’ decision-making, which led to him to possess and ultimately use a firearm.
[64] When asked by Ms. Koneswaran why he had a firearm, he responded, “It’s a good question. I don’t know, maybe to feel more secure.” Of course, one obvious explanation for obtaining and possessing a firearm was for Mr. Hinds to have a tool of intimidation that he used when committing the robberies.
[65] I also wish to make it clear to Mr. Hinds that his decision to illegally arm himself, even if it was partly for his own protection, is not mitigating. Indeed, condoning in any way the illegal possession of handguns for one’s protection would invite the creation of the Wild West, where members of the public would feel justified in arming themselves and seeking their own version of justice, refusing to engage with law enforcement, and resulting in the break down of the rule of law. Such an approach would undermine public safety and exacerbate the existing problem with the possession and use of illegal firearms in this city.
Principles of Sentencing
[66] The fundamental purpose of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society. [See s. 718 of the Criminal Code]
[67] Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the sentencing objectives enumerated in s. 718(a) – (f) of the Criminal Code, including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused.
Denunciation and Deterrence
[68] Denunciation and deterrence are the paramount objectives in this case. The gravity of firearm offences will almost always require a severe sentence even for youthful offenders coming before the Court without a prior record. [See R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68 at para. 24]
[69] In R. v. Thavakularatnam, 2018 ONSC 2380, [2018] O.J. No. 2038, at para. 21, Justice Akhtar described gun crime as a cancer:
Gun crime has become a cancer in Toronto. Despite several years of case law condemning the offence, the possession of firearms remains a blight on the city and its residents. Guns are made and used to maim, threaten, and kill. …Courts have sought to send an unambiguous message to those involved in gun crime that convictions will inevitably bear severe consequences.
[70] The rate of police-reported violent crime involving a firearm increased in 2022 by 8.9%. The 2022 rate of firearm-related violent crime is at its highest level since comparable data was first compiled in 2009. [See Exhibit 2]
[71] The increase in firearm-related violent crime in Ontario was largely driven by an increase in the number of these crimes in Toronto. Although almost all census metropolitan areas (CMAs) in Ontario saw an increase in firearm-related violent crime, the increase in the number of these crimes was especially high in Toronto. After three consecutive yearly declines, police services covering the Toronto CMA reported 2,576 firearm-related violent crimes, 725 more than in 2021. [See Exhibit 2]
[72] While the fact that a particular offence occurs frequently in a particular community is not in itself an aggravating factor, a sentencing judge may consider the prevalence of the offence at issue in balancing the various sentencing objectives, including the need to denounce the unlawful conduct in question in that city and at the same time to deter anyone else from doing the same thing. [See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras. 90 and 102]
[73] Given the need to deter and denounce the offence of robbery, Parliament has set the maximum sentence for robbery as life imprisonment.
[74] The Court of Appeal confirmed that the range for serious gun crimes of this nature – specifically the attempt robbery and shooting of Mr. Kamel - is between seven and eleven years. [See R. v. Bellisimo, 2009 ONCA 49 at para. 3] A similar range of sentence is commonly handed down in robberies involving the use of firearms, even when no physical injuries are inflicted. [See R. v. Asif, 2020 ONSC 1403 (Stribopoulos J.) at paras. 42-45]
[75] While sentencing ranges can assist judges in their application of all relevant principles and objectives, it is important to note that such ranges are guidelines and not fixed rules. As the Supreme Court explained in Lacasse, at para. 51, there will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below, is entirely appropriate.
[76] It is worth noting that none of the cases provided by counsel dealt with an accused with a similar number of offences and a similar level of overall seriousness to that of Mr. Hinds.
Rehabilitation and Restraint
[77] The focus on denunciation and deterrence does not mean that rehabilitation can be ignored, nor does it mean that proportionality in sentencing is no longer an applicable principle. Sentencing is a highly individualized process and particular circumstances relating to blameworthiness, prospects for rehabilitation and the like must always be taken into account. [See Lacasse at para 58]
[78] The fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed it. (See s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code)
[79] Sections 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require me to consider the principle of restraint when sentencing Mr. Hinds. This is particularly true given that Mr. Hinds is a young, first-time offender.
[80] While the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given adequate weight, they should rarely be the sole determinants of the length of a first penitentiary sentence. [See R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 at para. 80 and R. v. Shaheen, 2022 ONCA 734 at para. 14]
[81] Mr. Hinds is a 24-year-old bi-racial black male. As he explained to the author of the PSR, Mr. Hinds has encountered discrimination in various settings, particularly during his time in school where he has been discriminated for his bi-racial background. The Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris 2021 ONCA 680 interpreted section 718.2 (e) through the context of black offenders and the systemic discrimination that they face:
Although we would not equate Black offenders with Indigenous offenders, for the purposes of s. 718.2(e), the Gladue / Ipeelee jurisprudence can inform the sentencing of Black offenders in several respects: see Borde, at para. 30. Just as with the discrimination suffered by Indigenous offenders, courts should take judicial notice of the existence of anti-Black racism in Canada and its potential impact on individual offenders… Similarly, in considering the restraint principle, courts should bear in mind well-established over-incarceration of Black offenders, particularly young male offenders. [See Morris at par. 123]
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[82] In determining an appropriate sentence, it is necessary to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. [See s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code]
Aggravating factors
[83] The facts and circumstances of Mr. Hinds’ offences are particularly aggravating:
- The impact on Mr. Kamel, who could have easily been killed, and on the other robbery victims, is extremely aggravating. The fear and trauma experienced by the many affected jewellery store clerks is very apparent on the surveillance videos filed in Exhibit 1.
- The illegal possession of handguns is an extremely grave offence. Mr. Hinds was armed with a handgun for 5 of the 6 robberies.
- Mr. Hinds participated in six planned robberies. Mr. Hinds and his accomplices organized to ensure they had the necessary tools to commit the robberies, including hammers, bags, and get-away vehicles.
- Mr. Hinds’ offences were group attacks.
- Mr. Hinds and his accomplices disguised themselves.
- Mr. Hinds’ offences took place in busy, public locations, putting at risk numerous people.
- Mr. Hinds and his accomplices targeted jewellery stores. Members of society including both shoppers and retail employees should feel safe in our malls and stores. It is aggravating that the victims of Mr. Hinds’ actions are employees of jewellery stores who face enhanced vulnerability due to the high value of the goods they sell and the resulting higher risk of being robbed. This is similar to the higher vulnerability bank tellers and convenience store clerks experience. [See R. v. Hanna, 2024 ONCA 911 at para. 6 and R. v. Lewis, 2009 ONCA 792 at para. 3]
- It is highly aggravating that Mr. Hinds continued to participate in violent armed robberies, and repeatedly possessed a loaded handgun, even after the horrific result in the attempted robbery of Mr. Kamel.
Mitigating Factors
[84] There are several mitigating factors:
- Mr. Hinds is a youthful first offender.
- While his guilty pleas cannot be characterized as early, with the pleas taking place after several days of evidence at the preliminary inquiry, Mr. Hinds did plead guilty before any victim was required to testify.
- Mr. Hinds’ guilty pleas are a demonstration of the remorse he has expressed to me and to some degree, the author of the pre-sentence report.
- I appreciate the challenges Mr. Hinds has faced in his life, as outlined in the Pre-Sentence Report, and as addressed earlier in these reasons.
- I take into account the family support Mr. Hinds has in the community.
- I am mindful of the good qualities he possesses, including his willingness to work. It is clear that Mr. Hinds has done well while on bail, which provides some hope for Mr. Hinds’ rehabilitation.
- Mr. Hinds’ guilty pleas have also saved the court time that would have been required for the Crown to prove the cases at trial.
- I consider the 10 actual days he has already served. On a 1.5:1 basis, I give Mr. Hinds credit for 15 days of pre-sentence custody (PSC).
- I also take into account the length of time Mr. Hinds has spent on a strict bail.
Appropriate Sentence
[85] Handguns are an all too prevalent menace in the Greater Toronto Area. First and foremost, the sentences imposed for firearm offences must further the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. [See R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745 at para. 14]
[86] While I appreciate the limits of deterrence, as discussed in the articles provided by Mr. Vakili, the violent crimes committed by Mr. Hinds call out for a lengthy denunciatory sentence. In my view, the sentence must communicate to the community and to Mr. Hinds and others who choose to commit similar violent, armed robberies, that they will face severe consequences.
[87] A jail sentence of 6 years for the many violent offences committed by Mr. Hinds in this case – even for a young, first offender – would not adequately reflect society’s abhorrence of Mr. Hinds’ violent conduct. It would also fail to properly reflect the proportionality principle.
[88] But for the mitigating factors in this case – particularly Mr. Hinds’ guilty pleas, youthfulness, and his lack of a criminal record – a sentence approaching 10 years would be appropriate.
[89] However, having considered the submissions of counsel and the cases presented, and applying the relevant sentencing principles, including restraint and totality, I find that a global sentence of 8 years on top of Mr. Hinds’ pre-sentence custody is necessary and appropriate.
Sentence Imposed
[90] Mr. Hinds, please stand.
[91] After noting the 10 days or the equivalent of 15 days of PSC, I sentence you to an additional 8 years in the penitentiary. The breakdown of the sentences is as follows:
- For the three London offences, I sentence you to 8 years on each count, concurrent to each other;
- For the five Toronto Region robberies, I sentence you to 6 years, concurrent on each count and to the sentences for the London offences; and
- For the s. 95 offence, I sentence you to 4 years concurrent to all other sentences.
Ancillary Orders
In addition, I will make the following ancillary orders:
s. 109 Weapons Prohibition Order
[92] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, I am prohibiting you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life.
DNA Order
[93] All of the offences, other than the s. 95 offence, are primary designated offences for which I must make the order. The section 95 offence is a secondary designated offence.
[94] Both parties are jointly recommending that I make a DNA order. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to allow the application. I therefore order that you provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
Forfeiture Order
[95] Pursuant to s. 491(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the firearm and ammunition, seized by the police, shall be forfeited to His Majesty, and shall be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
No Contact Order While in Custody
[96] Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, I am ordering that Mr. Hinds have no contact or communication either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means with the following people:
- Riham KAMEL
- Kwok CHOW
- Choi-Sun LAM
- Rajesh CHUGH
- Nishan Sahib SINGH
- Sachin GEHLOT
- Debra BURKUS
- Taghi GHASAMBOLAND
Victim Fine Surcharge
[97] Given the sentence I am imposing, I am waiving the Victim Fine Surcharge.
[98] Mr. Hinds, you are still a young man with a long life ahead of you beyond this sentence. You have a partner and a family in the community to support you when you are released. I hope you take advantage of the programs made available to you while serving your sentence. I wish you well.
Released: January 14, 2025
Signed: Justice Joseph Callaghan