ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025 12 11

COURT FILE No.: 25 50017315

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

BRENT CRANE

Sentencing Judgment

Before Justice Brock Jones

Heard on October 8, 30, November 10, and 18, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on December 11, 2025

P. Garcia — counsel for the Crown

C. O'Connor — amicus

B. Crane — self-represented

Jones J.:

Introduction

[1] Brent Crane pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a long-term supervision order ("LTSO"), contrary to Criminal Code section 753.3(1). Mr. Crane accepted that he was subject to an LTSO, which included a term that prohibited him from consuming drugs. A second term required him to provide financial information to the satisfaction of his parole supervisor. He breached both conditions.

[2] The Crown proceeded by indictment.

[3] Mr. Crane chose to represent himself. I appointed Mr. O'Connor to act as amicus.

Facts In Support of the Guilty Pleas and Background Information

[4] Mr. Crane was convicted on ten counts of robbery and one count of motor vehicle theft. He was subsequently declared a dangerous offender by Steinberg J. of the British Columbia Provincial Court on February 8, 2019. He received a six-year prison sentence and a ten-year LTSO.

[5] On February 8, 2023, Mr. Crane, who had been transferred to Ontario to serve his federal sentence, was released on statutory release ("SR") from the Beaver Creek Institution and placed under the jurisdiction of the Downtown Toronto Parole Office. Parole officials suspended his release on April 2, 2024. Mr. Crane failed to return to the community residential facility ("CRF") where he had been residing and was declared unlawfully at large.

[6] An investigation revealed that on April 1, 2024, Mr. Crane flew a woman from Regina to Toronto and rented an Airbnb. The parties had known each other for nearly 20 years and had recently started a relationship. On April 4, 2024, while they were both at the Airbnb, he wanted to see her phone. She refused to give him her phone. He became upset and assaulted her by punching her in the face. He caused her bodily harm. He left the room, and she contacted security personnel for help. Police officers arrested Mr. Crane and charged him with assault causing bodily harm. [^1]

[7] Mr. Crane pleaded guilty to this offence before me on April 10, 2024. The Crown acknowledged it was an extremely early guilty plea, and the victim was no longer in Ontario. Its ability to locate her was uncertain if the case went to trial. I sentenced him on April 15, 2024, to a 90-day conditional sentence order ("CSO") and one year of probation. The CSO would commence upon his release from custody (see Criminal Code section 742.7(1)), following the sentence for robbery imposed by Steinberg J. At that time, Mr. Crane's early release on that sentence had been suspended, and I was unsure if he would be released before the warrant of committal's expiry on February 7, 2025. I also considered that Mr. Crane would be subject to a 10-year LTSO, which would add an extra and significant layer of protection for the public. He was reminded of these orders, the importance of following them, and that he remained under the jurisdiction of the Parole Board of Canada. [^2]

[8] On October 25, 2024, Mr. Crane was released back into the community before the conclusion of his six-year sentence for robbery. For a period, he appeared to be stable. He was living at a CRF in Toronto.

[9] However, on December 11, 2024, Mr. Crane walked away from the CRF in violation of the terms of his release, resulting in the suspension of his release. Toronto Police Service officers located Mr. Crane shortly afterwards, responding to a disturbance. When they arrived at the scene, Mr. Crane was yelling and claiming he was overdosing. He was taken to a hospital, where he had to be sedated and restrained. He was aggressive and violent. He threw bodily fluids and objects at the officers and hospital staff.

[10] During a post-suspension interview with a parole officer, Mr. Crane claimed that unknown persons injected him with an unknown substance and forcibly inserted cocaine into his anal cavity and mouth. He ultimately admitted to ingesting cocaine.

[11] While in detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre as a result of his return to custody, he committed an act of mischief by damaging a television on December 22, 2024. He pleaded guilty to this offence, and Justice Oleskiw of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced him to 15 days in jail on January 9, 2025.

[12] Mr. Crane was next granted statutory release for his federal sentence on January 20, 2025. After the custodial portion of his sentence concluded on February 8, 2025, he began serving the 10-year LTSO. The terms of his LTSO were set by the Parole Board of Canada. One of the terms prohibited Mr. Crane from consuming drugs other than prescribed medication, which must be taken as prescribed. Another term required Mr. Crane to provide documented financial information to the satisfaction of his parole supervisor.

[13] Mr. Crane resided at the Keele Community Correctional Centre ("CCC") in Toronto. On April 1, 2025, an officer, while conducting a security patrol, located Mr. Crane in a room. He refused to open the door to the room for the officer. Once the officer obtained assistance and was able to open the door, they found smoke, liquid on the floor, and a pipe of some kind. Mr. Crane later told EMS staff that he had taken drugs. As a result, on April 2, 2025, his LTSO was suspended due to concerns about his use of illegal substances. The officers exercised their discretion and decided not to lay a criminal charge against Mr. Crane for failing to comply with his LTSO.

[14] During a post-suspension interview with Mr. Crane on April 10, 2025, he was informed of the possibility of future criminal charges. He admitted that he "slipped" and engaged in drug use. He was encouraged to take advantage of counselling services when he felt he was struggling.

[15] Mr. Crane returned to the Keele CCC on April 28, 2025. Two days later, he failed to provide a required urinalysis sample. However, Mr. Crane had provided samples on multiple prior occasions between 2023 and this point in 2025, as required, and had consistently tested negative for drug use. As he may have had a medical difficulty with providing a sample at the time, the officers did not pursue the matter.

[16] On May 5, 2025, Mr. Crane started treatment programs at Anishnawbe Health in Toronto. He also began counselling sessions with Indigenous Patient Navigator Marcela Ortega once a week. He found a potential employer and remained available for work when opportunities arose.

[17] He continued without incident for several months. He reviewed the terms of his LTSO with his parole officer again on July 28, 2025.

[18] On August 28, 2025, a concern arose when Mr. Crane submitted a sample for urinalysis. The test indicated the presence of THC. Mr. Crane stated that he had a medical marijuana prescription, which he had not previously disclosed to his parole officer. However, the marijuana he used did not seem to have been obtained legally through a prescription. Despite this, no criminal charges were filed.

[19] However, on September 2, 20250, another demand was made for a urinalysis sample. Mr. Crane complied. He was also asked whether he had financial accounts with institutions other than Scotiabank, as information brought to the correctional authorities raised their suspicions. Mr. Crane stated that he did not. However, in a subsequent meeting with Ms. E. Brennan, a manager at the Keele CCC, Mr. Crane disclosed that he did not have other accounts with different financial institutions and committed to providing bank statements within a week. He never did.

[20] The results of his urinalysis testing were obtained on September 5, 2025. The same test he provided tested positive for cocaine. The CSC issued a warrant of suspension for Mr. Crane's LTSO. He was taken into custody and held at the Toronto South Detention Centre ("TSDC"). He was criminally charged with two counts of failing to comply with an LTSO order on September 23, 2025.

Testimony of Armin Dubicancac

[21] Mr. Dubicancac is Mr. Crane's parole officer. He testified on November 10, 2025, and provided evidence regarding Mr. Crane's recent compliance history while serving his sentence in the Toronto area. As a parole officer, Mr. Dubicancac is responsible for supervising Mr. Crane, monitoring his conditions of release set by the Parole Board of Canada, and developing a correctional plan for him.

[22] Mr. Crane stayed at the Keele CCC, which houses about 40 male offenders. They are considered high-risk individuals. When the Parole Board imposes a residency condition, like it did for Mr. Crane, the Keele CCC must accept the offender. Every offender has access to support programs daily if they are willing to seek help.

[23] Regarding Mr. Crane, he was serving his third federal prison sentence. He had a history of drug-induced psychosis that led him to commit violent crimes. In particular, he was known to abuse cocaine and crystal meth. Ensuring he abstains from drug use would improve society's safety. When Mr. Crane uses drugs, there is a much higher chance that he might offend again.

[24] Similarly, there were strong reasons for him to enforce the requirement on Mr. Crane's LTSO that he must report all financial accounts to his case management team. It is crucial that the CSC ensures offenders are not benefiting from the proceeds of crime or involved in illegal activities. Several times, Mr. Crane was asked if he had other accounts, and he consistently claimed he did not. Ultimately, this was proven to be untrue.

[25] Once he and his colleagues noticed a surprising number of e-transfers in Mr. Crane's known accounts, they were unable to determine the source of some of the funds. They were concerned the funds might be linked to drug trafficking or used to buy drugs.

[26] The KOHO credit card that was found may have been a prepaid VISA or Mastercard. From Mr. Dubicancac's perspective, what mattered was that it was a financial account he was unaware of. Mr. Crane was not being transparent about his finances, despite his legal obligation to do so, and seemed to be hiding sources of income from him.

[27] These concerns were linked to another ongoing issue with Mr. Crane, which was that he appeared to be abusing his access to prescription medication. He had been prescribed Wellbutrin. Staff noticed that the container used to monitor his medication was empty when it should not have been, raising suspicion that he could have been selling the medication. Mr. Crane eventually admitted that he was using the medication more than the prescription allowed, and claimed he was doing so due to being in severe pain from a surgery he had in Kingston. However, the medication was not meant for pain relief. Unfortunately, it is known to be abused by offenders, who will crush it and snort it.

[28] A further investigation revealed that Mr. Crane had two prescriptions for the same medication, one from each of two different pharmacies. Mr. Dubicancac concluded that Mr. Crane was "double-dipping." During a discussion about his medication, Mr. Crane asked Mr. Dubicancac, "Why are you accusing me of selling it?" but Mr. Dubicancac never asked that question. Instead, Mr. Crane made this utterance unprompted.

[29] Mr. Crane then revealed he had some medication hidden in his sock that should have been in his medication box. At that point, Mr. Dubicancac and his team became confident Mr. Crane was abusing his medication at a minimum.

[30] During questioning by Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Dubicancac acknowledged that Mr. Crane has made progress over the past two years. He appears to be working towards sobriety and has been pleasant and cooperative. However, he has also been extremely disrespectful or verbally aggressive at times. His behaviour has been inconsistent. He has also engaged with Anishnawbe Health, which seems to be a supportive relationship for Mr. Crane.

Prior Criminal Record and Index Offences

[31] Mr. Crane was sentenced on February 8, 2019, to 10 counts of robbery and one count of motor vehicle theft. The series of robberies took place from June 18 to July 2014 in New Westminster, B.C. The incidents involved businesses such as fast-food restaurants and targeted vulnerable victims. He threatened victims with a knife, describing it as a 12-inch metal blade. He grabbed at least one victim by the neck while pointing the knife directly at him. In another incident, he placed the knife against a victim's stomach and demanded she follow his commands. The robberies were extremely violent, planned, involved the use of a potentially deadly weapon, and included threats to the safety or lives of his victims. None suffered physical injuries.

[32] Mr. Crane was high on drugs at the time and stated that he knew using drugs clouded his moral judgment to the point that he did not have a conscience to say no to bad things." [^3] He was using cocaine, crystal meth and marijuana when he committed these offences. He committed the index offences to obtain money to support his drug addiction. [^4]

[33] Justice Steinberg of the British Columbia Provincial Court found that Mr. Crane engaged in "severe forms of violence" and that his risk of re-offending was high, partly due to his long history of drug addiction. However, Justice Steinberg also concluded that positive change was possible for Mr. Crane with proper treatment: see page 5 of the court's supplementary written reasons, released on March 14, 2019. The Court noted that Mr. Crane had responded well to appropriate care while in provincial remand and expressed optimism that participation in high-intensity programs addressing drug dependency, along with other interventions, could help prevent him from returning to his "old habits": see pages 6-7. Nevertheless, the Court also emphasized that Mr. Crane's reintegration into society needed to be gradual, with "a careful eye" on his relationships, and that he must continue programming while on the LTSO: see page 7. Maintaining Mr. Crane's sobriety remained essential.

[34] Mr. Crane had an extensive criminal record before committing the index offences. As a young person, he received 34 findings of guilt between 1996 and 1999. These included violent crimes, such as assault, aggravated assault, and breaches of court orders.

[35] After he turned 18, his criminal conduct continued. Between 2000 and 2016, he amassed at least 34 convictions. His adult record includes property offences, breaches of court orders, and failing to attend court. Notably, he has convictions for assault causing bodily harm, robbery, assaulting a peace officer, pointing a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon.

[36] He was first sentenced to the penitentiary in July 2005 after being convicted of three counts of assault causing bodily harm. He received a two-year prison sentence.

[37] He was subsequently sentenced to the penitentiary after committing robberies in Toronto. He received credit for 20 months of pre-sentence custody and was imprisoned for nearly another three years on July 9, 2007. The robberies involved vulnerable clerks in businesses. Mr. Crane armed himself with a large knife when committing them.

[38] The full details of Mr. Crane's prior record were contained in the comprehensive documents provided by the Crown from the CSC. Importantly, the CSC noted that Mr. Crane has numerous convictions for failing to comply with court orders, and has repeatedly breached his release conditions and/or been unlawfully at large. [^5] He demonstrated an "inability to live in the community for any length of time before reoffending."

Background of the Offender

[39] Mr. Crane is 43 years old. He is a member of the Key First Nations in Norquay, Saskatchewan. Although he did not live on the reserve, he maintains strong ties to his community. Mr. Crane's parents struggled with substance misuse and faced challenges in parenting their six children. He spent much of his childhood in foster care and served youth sentences. His mother was a residential school survivor, and most of his aunts and uncles also experienced the impacts of that school system, often facing their own issues with substance misuse.

[40] Frequent moves marked Mr. Crane's early life, as his family shifted from Regina to Calgary and then Edmonton. He struggled with drug use and alcoholism, which were hard to overcome. There was also violence in the family home that the children observed.

[41] His relationship with his mother, Ms. Carol Crane, was close before her passing in 2011. She was a member of the Key (Saulteaux) First Nation. His relationship with his father, Mr. Richard Noname was distant for much of his life. Mr. O'Connor submitted a letter from Richard Noname, to assist me with understanding Mr. Crane's life history. [^6] His father is a member of the Piapot (Cree) First Nation. [^7]

[42] In 1995, Richard Noname was criminally charged in connection with an incident involving a man named Charles Key that took place in Edmonton. He stabbed Mr. Key with a knife. After the police located him, Mr. Crane and his siblings were taken into custody by social services. His wife, Ms. Carol Crane, was deeply affected by her children being removed and turned to alcohol.

[43] Mr. Noname was sentenced to 14 years for attempted murder. He lost meaningful contact with his children and is deeply concerned that they are being raised without a connection to their culture. He believes the child welfare system caused significant harm to his family and created lasting trauma. Mr. Crane agrees that he was separated from his culture and rates his understanding of his Aboriginal culture as a 5 out of 10. [^8] While serving previous federal sentences, he participated in Aboriginal healing circles and worked with an Elder.

[44] Mr. Crane reported to the correctional authorities that he experienced mental, emotional and physical abuse growing up. He associates that abuse with his criminal activity. [^9] At the age of 11 or 12, he started drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. By his mid-20s, he began to use crystal meth, cocaine, and heroin. When placed in the foster care system, he described his family as "the people I met on the street or while I was going in and out of jail." [^10]

[45] As a young adult, Mr. Crane became homeless and fell into a cycle of drug abuse and criminality. [^11]

[46] In 2016, Dr. P. Bartel, a registered psychologist, assessed Mr. Crane during the dangerous offender proceeding before Justice Steinberg. He concluded that there was a poor prognosis for successfully managing or controlling Mr. Crane's risk of violence in the community, even with intensive intervention and support. Mr. Crane had not demonstrated any capacity to reduce or control his risk. He was considered to be a high risk for violence, and his risk would be highest when engaging in substance use. [^12]

[47] Dr. Bartel diagnosed Mr. Crane with significant antisocial personality traits and psychosis that largely resulted from the abuse of street drugs. [^13] When he committed the index offences, he told Dr. Bartel that he was "fueled by the Scarl Beast to kill himself and that robbing the convenience stores was supposed to represent the end of the world." [^14] He stated that "the drugs made me do the robberies" and chose to use cocaine and crystal meth. When using the drugs, he felt "powerful and untouchable." ^15

[48] Mr. Crane's offence cycle is related to his substance abuse problems, which began at the age of 11. [^16] He commits crimes to support his drug addiction. Dr. Bartel noted that while this is a significant risk factor for Mr. Crane, he lacked insight at the time of the assessment and has not historically viewed his drug abuse as problematic. [^17] Dr. Bartel further concluded that Mr. Crane must be subject to prohibitions against any form of substance abuse. Mr. Crane suffers as well from mental illness, which can be triggered by his drug abuse and which also requires long-term treatment.

Mr. Crane's Right of Allocution

[49] Mr. Crane told me he often felt "misunderstood" for being aggressive during his meeting with his parole officers. He denied using his financial accounts for illegal purposes. Although he admitted he did not provide information about the KOHO credit card, he believed he had generally met expectations regarding financial disclosure. Concerning the cocaine, he did not deny using it but claimed, essentially, that he gave in to temptation when it was made available to him at the Keele CCC.

[50] He reiterated that he wanted this matter resolved as quickly as possible, regardless of my decision. On November 10, 2025, when Mr. O'Connor suggested obtaining Mr. Crane's consent to produce a prior Gladue report presented to Justice Steinberg in British Columbia, he stated he did not want to pursue that. I adjourned the matter to November 18, 2025, so he could speak with Mr. O'Connor and reconsider his stance. On that date, Mr. Crane indicated he wanted to adjourn the case to December 17, 2025, to obtain a copy of the Gladue report. Having reflected on the matter, he changed his position. I granted the request.

[51] Nevertheless, via email correspondence earlier this week, Mr. O'Connor advised me that the decision was made not to obtain the former Gladue report. I am satisfied Mr. Crane made this decision after speaking with amicus. Even in the absence of a formal Gladue report, I had considerable information about Mr. Crane's background and life experiences as an Indigenous Canadian.

Positions of the Parties

[52] Ms. Garcia submits that a sentence of two years in custody, in addition to any credit for pre-sentence custody, is justified. Mr. Crane has a lengthy record of crimes of violence. The dangerous offender assessment completed for Justice Steinberg noted that his drug abuse and anti-social lifestyle form part of his pattern of offending. It is vital that the LTSO conditions are followed to reduce his degree of risk.

[53] She further submits that Mr. Crane's commitment to adhering to those conditions and to his own rehabilitation is not impressive. While he has attended programming sessions, he has not meaningfully participated, according to evidence from the CSC. His behaviour has been erratic, and at times noted as hostile and threatening.

[54] Succinctly put, Mr. Garcia argues that Mr. Crane has been given opportunities to comply, but at some point, those opportunities must come to an end. He is at an imminent risk of re-offending violently because he is unable or unwilling to curb his use of drugs. If he is sentenced to a significant term, the CSC will connect him with culturally appropriate programming through the Intensive Correctional Program Model. That is the programming he must engage with to prevent future offending.

[55] Mr. O'Connor, as amicus, recommends that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Crane is time served. He pleaded guilty very early and takes full responsibility for his actions. The Gladue factors applicable in this case are clear. Mr. Crane has received some community support, and his father is prepared and willing to support him upon his release from custody. Mr. Crane did not commit any additional offences beyond breaching the terms of the LTSO. Mr. O'Connor notes that the breach of financial disclosure was very minor, and that drug addiction will be a challenging, lifelong struggle for Mr. Crane.

[56] In support of his position, Mr. O'Connor relied upon R. v. Pelletier, 2016 ONCJ 628. Justice Nakatsuru (as he then was) imposed a sentence of one day in custody in addition to 161 days in pre-trial detention. The offender consumed drugs in violation of a term of her LTSO. It was her first breach of the LTSO. Justice Nakatsuru noted that the offender was quite young, at 26, and the risk associated with her drug use was not nearly as great as the offenders in Ipeelee and Ladue.

The LTSO Regime and Prior Sentencing Authorities

[57] In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, the Supreme Court of Canada explained the administration of LTSOs at para. 45:

LTSOs are administered in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 ("CCRA"). LTSOs must include the conditions set out in s. 161(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620. In addition, the National Parole Board ("NPB") may include any other condition "that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender" (CCRA, s. 134.1(2)). A member of the NPB may suspend an LTSO when an offender breaches any of the LTSO conditions, or where the NPB is satisfied that suspension is necessary and reasonable to prevent such a breach or to protect society (CCRA, s. 135.1(1)).

[58] The Supreme Court held that the purpose of an LTSO is twofold: (1) to protect the public, and (2) to rehabilitate offenders and reintegrate them into the community. Breaches of an LTSO should be taken far more seriously than breaches of other court orders, such as a probation order, given the lengthy maximum sentence of 10 years Parliament has created for this offence: see para. 54. The sentence for a breach of an LTSO should consider the following factors, as per Ipeelee para. 52, and R. v. Matte, 2012 ONCA 504, at paras. 34-7:

• The nature of the condition breached and its importance to the protection of the public, having regard to the offender's history;
• The role that the condition played in managing the offender's risk of re-offending;
• The circumstances of the breach;
• Any prior breach of an LTSO conviction on the offender's record;
• The offender's history of compliance or lack of compliance with supervision generally; and
• The offender's amenability or lack of amenability to treatment.

[59] In Ipeelee, the Supreme Court held that a sentencing judge must apply all principles mandated by ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, including rehabilitation when sentencing an offender for breaching an LTSO. It is also the sentencing judge's duty to apply section 718.2(e) for an Indigenous offender.

[60] Importantly, the Supreme Court held that rehabilitation is a key feature of the long-term offender regime. This feature differentiates it from the dangerous offender regime, which focuses on public safety: see para. 50. Ipeelee (and the companion case of Ladue) was decided based on facts related to an offender who was sentenced before the 2008 amendments to the Criminal Code. Those amendments introduced the current two-stage approach to dangerous offender proceedings that grants courts discretion during the penalty phase: see R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, at paras. 18-23. Previously, a designation as a dangerous offender meant an automatic indeterminate sentence. Now, a designation as a dangerous offender does not compel any particular sentencing outcome. Rather, an offender may receive a standard sentence, a determinate sentence of incarceration of at least two years followed by an LTSO of up to 10 years, or a sentence of an indeterminate period of incarceration: see Criminal Code section 753(4). The sentencing court may consider an indeterminate sentence only if it determines that lesser sentencing options have been ruled out as inappropriate.

[61] The distinction between a dangerous offender designation and a long-term offender designation was critical to the Supreme Court's analysis in Ipeelee. It remains highly significant in a sentencing hearing for a breach of an LTSO under the present regime when the offender has been designated a dangerous offender, as I will explain.

[62] Prior reported decisions for breaches of this nature demonstrate how seriously courts take this offence.

[63] Justice Greene, in R. v. Middleton, 2019 ONCJ 280, at para. 42, identified a sentencing range for drug consumption breaches of an LTSO to be between 9 months and 4-5 years. In Middleton, the offender, who had been designated a dangerous offender, breached the LTSO by using cocaine, going AWOL, failing to report, and not participating in programming. It was his third conviction for breaching an LTSO. Justice Greene held that the offender's conduct undermined both the public safety and rehabilitative purposes of the order. She imposed a sentence of 34 months.

[64] In R. v. Walton, 2025 ONCJ 382, the offender was declared a dangerous offender. He was serving a 10-year LTSO and pleaded guilty to breaching a condition of his LTSO by consuming drugs. It was his third breach of drug consumption, but the court acknowledged Mr. Walton's "progressive improvement of insight" and efforts towards self-improvement: see para. 48. Justice Faria imposed an 18-month sentence.

[65] In R. v. Hoshal, 2020 ONCJ 345, the Indigenous offender pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching his LTSO. Both involved the use of substances. For the first breach, he took a shot of alcohol offered by a friend. For the second breach, after the offender had been on the LTSO for approximately a year, he accepted a joint that was laced with methamphetamine.

[66] Justice Pringle noted 11 clean urine tests while on the LTSO, which the court held were demonstrative of a "true effort and a pattern of more compliance than disobedience": see para. 29. Still, Justice Pringle also found a direct relationship between the offender's use of alcohol or drugs and his history of serious domestic offences. He had done well in custody and accepted treatment, but his commitment deteriorated while in the community. He was sentenced to 14 months' custody.

[67] In R. v. Liedtke, 2020 ONCJ 689, the Indigenous offender pleaded guilty to breaching an LTSO by consuming drugs he obtained on the street. He had been in the community for approximately four months before committing the offence. He had been doing well in his residential facility prior to the offence. While the offender had a record for crimes of violence, Justice Wheeler was unable to conclude that there was a direct link between the offender's use of substances and his past robberies: see para. 42. That is unlike the case of Mr. Crane, where the linkage is not disputed. Justice Wheeler imposed a 10-month sentence.

[68] In Matte, the trial judge imposed a sentence deemed to be the functional equivalent of two years for a first breach of an LTSO: see para. 25. The appellant was a long-term offender who admitted he took a pill held out to be Dilaudid by another resident of the CCF where he was residing. A term of his LTSO required him to abstain from non-prescribed drugs. The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant's response to long-term supervision had been "tepid, characterized by minimal effort, negligible motivation, and spotty and superficial participation": see para. 25. It upheld the trial judge's sentence.

[69] The appellant had a lengthy history of drug abuse that was "inextricably interwoven with his equally lengthy history of crime," including violent offences. Managing that risk was linked to abstinence from drugs, making the consumption of a single pill more serious than it might otherwise seem: see para. 42.

Conclusion

[70] A sentence for breaching an LTSO condition must adhere to the principle of proportionality. Proportionality remains the foundation of all sentencing decisions. A sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender": Criminal Code section 718.1. The sentencing judge must consider all relevant facts, including the "status and life experiences" of the offender, when assessing their degree of moral responsibility for their conduct: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 44.

[71] Mr. Crane's moral culpability for these breaches of his LTSO is, in my view, very high. It is not just that Mr. Crane used cocaine and misled his parole officer about his financial situation on one occasion. I understand that he has never been charged with, let alone convicted of, violating the terms of his LTSO before. However, there is a longer history of Mr. Crane demonstrating non-compliance related to various forms of release and previous court orders, despite being given numerous opportunities and several warnings about the consequences of non-compliance.

[72] Setting aside his youth record, Mr. Crane has convictions for failing to attend court, being unlawfully at large, escaping lawful custody, failing to comply with a recognizance, breaching peace bonds, and obstructing peace officers. He has also violated the terms of his statutory release multiple times in the past and had his LTSO suspended even when no charges were laid.

[73] His history of drug use over the past two years is very worrying. On December 11, 2024, he overdosed and later admitted to using cocaine. While at the hospital, he was aggressive towards staff. On April 10, 2025, he admitted to using drugs at the Keele CCC and was warned about potential future criminal charges. On August 28, 2025, a urinalysis test returned positive for THC, with Mr. Crane claiming it was due to a medical marijuana prescription, even though he had not disclosed such a prescription to his parole officer. No charges were laid. Then, on September 5, 2025, a urinalysis sample tested positive for cocaine.

[74] Mr. Crane repeatedly used drugs while on statutory release or his LTSO. His history of violent offences is clearly linked to his substance use, which he is aware of and has been warned about. Despite this, he continued to use drugs, and from the evidence at this hearing, I conclude that he habitually tried to hide his drug use from staff at the Keele CCC until he felt forced to admit it. He has managed to abstain from drugs at times, which is commendable. However, this does not change the fact that, despite many chances, he has shown he cannot be properly managed in a structured environment under CSC supervision. He remains a significant and ongoing threat to public safety.

[75] Furthermore, I find that the failure to disclose the full extent of his financial accounts was significant. It would be easy to dismiss the existence of a prepaid credit card as a relatively minor infraction. But that would fail to place this breach in its larger context. Mr. Crane was also abusing his ability to access prescription medication, and there were many questionable e-transfers in his other known bank accounts. It is crucial that correctional authorities have a clear and accurate understanding of an offender's financial affairs to ensure he does not misuse his funds for criminal activities, including drug use. This remains an ongoing concern at the Keele CCC, as Mr. Dubicancac explained. While I cannot definitively conclude that he was selling his prescription medication or received funds from criminal activity, it is undisputed that he was able to access and consume drugs while at the Keele CCC.

[76] I accept Mr. Dubicancac's testimony. He was honest, provided detailed answers, acknowledged when he was unsure about a fact, and recognized Mr. Crane's progress where there was supporting information. I agree with him that it is crucial to constantly monitor the drug subculture at the Keele CCC and address issues as needed to protect the public and support the rehabilitation of the offenders living there.

[77] The terms of Mr. Crane's LTSO were explained to him more than once, and he intentionally misled his parole officer about all his financial accounts. His refusal to honestly and accurately cooperate with Mr. Dubicancac was a choice and is, unfortunately, more evidence that he does not recognize the importance of taking his long-term rehabilitation seriously by working cooperatively with the correctional authorities. He instead regularly pushes the boundaries of what he can get away with, hoping to talk his way out of further criminal charges or other forms of punishment. He has been deceptive and practices avoidance when it suits him. After being given the opportunity to access the community following his relocation to Toronto, he has engaged in repeated drug use and a crime of intimate partner violence.

[78] Mr. Crane has long been aware of the importance of complying with the conditions set by the Parole Board of Canada and the consequences of violating them. He has been informed about the link between his drug abuse issues and the violent crimes he has committed in the past. Mr. Crane's previous violent acts against vulnerable and innocent members of society have been extremely serious and directly connected to his use of cocaine and crystal meth. He understands this and what he has done. However, he has shown, at best, inconsistent efforts to stay sober and his ability to abstain from substances when out of custody. While his connection to Anishnawbe Health Toronto and the services it offers is significant, and the love and support of his father are undoubtedly a source of motivation, they can only effectively help Mr. Crane if he demonstrates a commitment to following the terms of his LTSO; see Matte, at para. 48.

[79] Furthermore, when I sentenced Mr. Crane to a three-month conditional sentence for assaulting his domestic partner on April 15, 2024, he was on statutory release for the index offences. The Crown's position of a jail sentence was entirely reasonable, as committing a criminal offence against a domestic partner while on release involved two serious aggravating factors: see Criminal Code sections 718.2(a)(ii) and (vi). I decided against that sentence, believing that Mr. Crane had taken responsibility for his actions, was genuinely committed to his rehabilitation, and had made significant progress in that regard previously. While he had faltered, which was disappointing and concerning, his rehabilitation was still possible, especially if he adhered to the terms of the LTSO once released from federal custody. [^18] I explained to him that his progress so far was worthy of acknowledgment, but Justice Steinberg's sentence would have made it clear to him that his path to rehabilitation would be long and require dedication on his part.

[80] There is no doubt that Mr. Crane's life history is largely shaped by the devastating effects of Canada's mistreatment of its Indigenous peoples. His family has suffered from both the residential school system and the child welfare system. He and his siblings lost contact with their parents and their culture as children. In Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5, the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted not only the troubling legacy of the residential school system but also the history of the child welfare system being overused to break apart Indigenous families across the country. The harm and intergenerational trauma caused by these policies affected Mr. Crane from a young age and continue to impact him adversely today, which must be factored into my decision: see R. v. F.H.L, 2018 ONCA 83, at para. 40.

[81] And to his credit, Mr. Crane has demonstrated some effort over the years in engaging with therapeutic and culturally meaningful programming to address the underlying criminogenic factors that have contributed to his reoffending. However, that commitment has been inconsistent at best.

[82] In some ways, Mr. Crane's case is similar to that of the appellant in Ipeelee. The appellant was an alcoholic with a criminal record full of violent offences committed while intoxicated. He violated his LTSO by failing a urinalysis test, and his LTSO had been suspended four times before. The trial judge observed that the appellant's criminal record showed a "consistent pattern of Mr. Ipeelee administering gratuitous violence against vulnerable, helpless people while he is in a state of intoxication." He was an Indigenous Canadian whose mother was an alcoholic, and he started drinking at 11 years old, developing a serious addiction. The Supreme Court concluded that a sentence of one year was appropriate, considering and giving proper weight to his circumstances as an Aboriginal offender: see paras. 90-93.

[83] At the same time, it is worth reiterating that Mr. Crane has been designated a dangerous offender, not a long-term offender. The "overriding purpose" of the dangerous offender and long-term offender regimes is the protection of the public from the risk of violent harm: see R. v. Johnson, 2003 SCC 46, at para. 29; R. v. A.R., 2022 ONCA 553, at para. 33. That purpose takes on even greater significance when sentencing dangerous offenders, and rehabilitation as a principle must be given much less weight in the final balancing accordingly: see Ipeelee at para. 50. Protection of the public is an "enhanced sentencing objective" in these cases: see R. v. J.W., 2025 SCC 16, at para. 61.

[84] To the extent that some other decisions of this court may be interpreted as having held that rehabilitation retains the same degree of significance in a sentencing decision for a dangerous offender who breaches an LTSO as compared to an offender who was previously designated as an LTO, I respectfully disagree. While rehabilitation must never be entirely disregarded, the protection of the public takes on paramount importance in these cases, even where Gladue considerations exist: see Ipeelee, supra; R. v. Napope, 2023 SKCA 1, at para. 26.

[85] I agree with Mr. O'Connor that an offender's moral culpability can be lessened by his extremely difficult life circumstances, especially for an Indigenous Canadian such as Mr. Crane. Indeed, Mr. Crane was raised in an environment where substance abuse may have been normalized for him, placing him at a significant disadvantage as a teenager and young adult. However, I find that the mitigating factors in this case should carry little weight. The case against him was very strong. Mr. Crane has had decades to change his behaviour and has been connected with culturally appropriate programming and treatment. Still, he has knowingly violated the terms of his statutory release and his LTSO on multiple occasions, despite these events constituting his first formal convictions. Unlike the appellant in Ipeelee, there is also evidence that Mr. Crane used drugs before the breach itself: see Ipeelee at para. 92. I am not satisfied that Mr. Crane's rehabilitative prospects are promising at this time, and the application of Gladue factors, as important as they are, must be practical: see R. v. Jamieson, 2024 ONSC 5890, paras. 59-60; R. v. Radcliffe, 2017 ONCA 176, at para. 59.

[86] Mr. Crane is entitled to credit for the pre-sentence custody he has accumulated since the information regarding these offences was laid before the court on September 23, 2025. That amounts to 80 days. I agree with Ms. Garcia that, although his LTSO was suspended earlier on September 5, 2025, I cannot consider the period between that date and September 23 for this sentencing hearing. This is because time spent in custody before September 23, 2025, was not "as a result of the offence": see R. v. Kubesch, 2025 ONCA 763, at para. 3; R. v. Wilson, 2010 BCCA 65, at paras. 13-22, leave to appeal refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. 108; Criminal Code section 719(3).

[87] The amount of credit to be awarded for this period is discretionary. I have considered the notoriously difficult conditions at the TSDC, as well as the fact that the LTSO continues to operate while the offender is in custody, until they begin serving a sentence: see Criminal Code section 753.4; R. v. Bourdon, 2012 ONCA 256, at para. 17. I conclude that some enhanced credit is appropriate. I grant Mr. Crane 1.5:1 credit for a total of 120 days.

[88] I find that Mr. Crane's breaches undermined both the public safety and rehabilitative aims of the LTSO. Considering the credit I award for the time Mr. Crane has already spent in custody, I impose a further 14-month sentence, consisting of one year for the breach involving cocaine use and four months for failing to comply with his parole officer's financial disclosure requirements. This results in an overall sentence of approximately 18 months. But for the very early guilty plea, the Crown's position would have been appropriate.

[89] During the sentencing hearing, Ms. Garcia informed me that Mr. Crane will be able to serve this sentence in a federal penitentiary, given the relevant provisions of the CCRA see, for example, section 135.1(4). That remains within the discretion of the CSC. I encourage them to do so, and such a placement will enable Mr. Crane to benefit from the high-intensity programming he needs to prevent future relapses and offending.

[90] The victim fine surcharges are waived.

Released: December 11, 2025

Signed: Justice Brock Jones

[^1]: Proceedings before Jones J. on April 10, 2024, courtroom 401 at the Toronto Regional Bail Centre.

[^2]: Proceedings before Jones J. on April 15, 2024, courtroom 907, at 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, at pp. 21-4.

[^3]: Correctional Plan of Release, page 2 of 24.

[^4]: Correctional Plan of Release, page 7 of 24.

[^5]: Correctional Plan of Release, page 16 of 24.

[^6]: Undated letter of Richard Noname.

[^7]: I have borrowed extensively from the written reasons of Justice Steinberg, dated March 14, 2019, to better understand the details of Mr. Crane's life.

[^8]: Correctional Plan of Release, page 22 of 24.

[^9]: Correctional Plan of Release, page 21 of 24.

[^10]: Written reasons of Justice Steinberg, at para. 3.

[^11]: Written reasons of Justice Steinberg, at para. 5.

[^12]: Psychological Report completed by Dr. P. Bartel, dated December 19, 2016, at page 24.

[^13]: Ibid, at page 13.

[^14]: Ibid, at page 17.

[^16]: Ibid. at page 18.

[^17]: Ibid. at page 22.

[^18]: Transcript of proceedings before Jones J., April 15, 2024, at p. 19.