ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-02-18
COURT FILE No.: Central East - Newmarket – 24-91101889
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
DENRICK ROSE
Before Justice A. A. Ghosh
Heard on December 19, 2024, and February 3, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
Released on February 18, 2025
S. Doyle and M. Caramanna — counsel for the Crown
N. DeBellefeuille — counsel for Denrick Rose
Ghosh J.:
I. Overview:
[1] Denrick Rose pleaded guilty to “Dangerous Driving Causing Death”, “Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm” (x3) and to breaching the curfew of a release order.
[2] The offender drove over 200 kilometres an hour on Highway 400, before continuing to drive at frightening speeds on King Road, in King City. He had five passengers in his vehicle, at least two of whom had asked him to slow down. He lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a light standard. Most of the occupants were seriously injured. Ms. Amelia Bal died from her injuries.
[3] The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, along with a 7-year driving prohibition to follow. The defence, primarily given quantified mitigation for harsh presentence custody conditions, submitted for a 2-year sentence with a 5-year driving prohibition. Given the tremendous interest this hearing had garnered from the community, I provided summary oral reasons supporting a 4.5-year global sentence some hours after receiving submissions. These are my final sentencing reasons.
II. Summary of the Evidence:
[4] In the early morning hours of February 18th, 2024, Denrick Rose was at a Valentine’s Day celebration in Caledon. By doing so, he was violating the curfew condition of a judicial release for an unrelated allegation in Peel. He was 18 years old at the time.
[5] Before 5:00 a.m., Mr. Rose drove five others to Denny’s Restaurant in Vaughan in his sister’s Infinity G37. Rishika Bal was in the rear passenger seat. Dale Foote was beside her. Brianna Brown beside him. Savanna Dueck was seated behind the driver. Terrel Odoom was the front seat passenger. Everyone in the car was 18 years old, except for Savanna who was 19.
[6] On the way to Denny’s, Mr. Rose drove east on King Road at speeds ranging from 99-151 km/h (in a 70 km/hr zone). Then on Highway 400, which has a posted limit of 100 km/hr, he drove at speeds ranging from 174 km/hr to 230 km/hr. Between King Road and King-Vaughan Sideroad, the speed limit on Highway 400 dropped to 80 km/hr an hour due to construction.
[7] Mr. Rose drove more than 200 km/hr for most of the trip south on the 400. At some point during this part of the drive, Brianna Brown told Ms. Dueck that she was scared and that the offender was driving too fast.
[8] They arrived at Denny’s at 5:24 a.m. Ms. Brown told Mr. Rose at the restaurant that he needed to slow down as it was unsafe. He would either ignore or defy these comments. They left the restaurant at 6:38 a.m.
[9] Mr. Rose resumed travelling at more than 200 km/hr for most of the drive northbound, ranging from 174 to 237 km/hr. The posted speed limit was 100 km/hr, with the same dip to 80 km/hr between King/Vaughan Side Road and King Road for construction.
[10] Mr. Rose exited Highway 400 at King Road, and drove west at speeds ranging from 129-210 km/hr. The posted speed limit in this area is 70 km/hr. During this part of the trip, Ms. Bal told Mr. Rose to slow down because she was scared. He did not comply.
[11] At about 6:47 a.m. as the vehicle travelled west on King Road towards a slight bend before 8th Concession Road, Mr. Rose lost control of the vehicle. It left the roadway on the north side, rotated counterclockwise and struck a light standard on the passenger rear door. After the collision, the vehicle moved up a grassy hill and came to rest on the north shoulder about 10 metres from the point of impact.
[12] At this intersection, King Road is a two-lane highway, with a modest incline and a slight curve for westbound traffic; the surface is paved with asphalt. The road was wet and in good repair.
[13] About 184 metres prior to the collision site and on the trajectory of the vehicle, the posted speed limit dropped from 70 to 50 km/hr. The vehicle’s speed immediately prior to impact was recorded by the Airbag Control Module as follows:
- Seven seconds prior to impact: 160 km/hr
- Six seconds prior to impact: 151 km/hr
- Five seconds prior to impact: 144 km/hr
- Four seconds prior to impact: 134 km/hr
- Three seconds prior to impact: 122 km/hr
- Two seconds prior to impact: 100 km/hr
- One second prior to impact: 75 km/hr
[14] The vehicle struck the light standard travelling sideways at about 75 km/hr. The roads were wet, it was -5°C, overcast with a light dusting of snow. No braking skid marks detected.
[15] Ms. Bal was seated closest to the point of impact, was unconscious and without vital signs when first responders arrived. She succumbed to her injuries and was pronounced dead at Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. Ms. Bal suffered multiple lethal blunt-force injuries to her head, chest, and pelvis, resulting in her death.
[16] Ms. Brown sustained a broken neck, broken pelvis and broken ribs and a bruised lung. Ms. Dueck sustained a broken back and broken shoulder. Mr. Foote was in critical condition with a broken pelvis, skull fracture, and a brain bleed. Mr. Odoom, the front seat passenger, received a minor laceration to his right elbow and swelling to his right eye. Mr. Rose was not physically injured.
[17] The expert collision reconstructionist determined that the roadway design did not create hazards for drivers approaching the collision scene. The expert also opined that the age of the tires and the improper installation of two of them may have affected the braking ability of the vehicle. However, it was also determined that these factors would not have contributed to the vehicle leaving the roadway but would have been significant after the vehicle left the roadway and traversed the snow-covered gravel shoulder and grassy area.
III. Victim Impact Evidence
[18] Over the course of almost an entire court day, I received devastating victim impact evidence from the loved ones of Amelia Bal, lovingly called “Milly” by many. Parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, dear friends, and extended members of the community, all shared the impact of her loss. Their individual and collective grief is palpable.
[19] Each loved one shared their deep connection to the victim, and their feelings of sustained anguish at the senseless, avoidable tragedy. There is also understandable anger, helplessness and despair animating their representations. In aggregate, the impact of Amelia’s death has been crushing to an entire community of family and friends.
[20] Her dear friends remain in intense and active grief almost a year later. Close friends, Tensae, David, Keith, Nia, and Eric, all poignantly shared this sentiment in different ways.
[21] Amelia’s sprawling extended family is as close and integrated as any immediate family can be. Alana and Oma Mohamed (cousin and aunt respectively) shared that their consequent grief is as intense as anyone in the life of the deceased. These feelings were echoed by aunts, Summattee, Savi, Meena and Camo, and cousins, Shazara, Anoushka, Maya and Dillon.
[22] Amelia’s siblings are utterly heartbroken by her loss. Rishana Bal is haunted by the loss of her younger sister. They were so close, and Rishana recounts the day of the tragedy so vividly that she feels it as if it just happened. She cries every day and constantly tries to navigate this grief that has taken over so many aspects of her life.
[23] Amelia’s younger sister Rishelle remains “so sad, worried and fearful” from her sister’s death. She lovingly recalled all the joyful times she spent with her sister. She sees how everyone around her is so saddened by the tragedy, and this deepens her pain.
[24] Rishi Bal, Amelia’s father, painfully shared how “Amelia was undoubtedly the light in every room.” He discussed her positive and vivacious nature and how her loss has left him “shattered”. Mr. Bal has been struggling to carry on and grief has become the constant and animating feature of his life. He feels helpless and despondent and worries constantly about the rest of his family.
[25] Christine Bal, the victim’s mother, viscerally shared the shock and devastation she experienced when she heard the news. She shared about their deep bond, and her daughter’s loving, charitable and driven nature. Amelia had ambitions and worked very hard to achieve her dreams. She was principled and just.
“As the days go by, I’ve learned a mother’s love never diminishes. In fact, my love for my daughter has grown, just as it would have if she was still alive. I am still her mother. No child dies without a legacy and a purpose for those that are left behind. It’s up to me, her mother to honor my child by healing. Amelia wouldn’t want it any other way.”
IV. Circumstances of the Offender:
[26] Denrick Rose is a 19-year-old young Black man and a first-time offender. A presentence report was generated, where I recommended that the author explore whether anti-Black racism played a role in the young man’s lived experience and engagement with the justice system.
[27] He is the youngest of six siblings and resided with his parents and three of his siblings at the time of his arrest. He comes from a loving, closeknit family, and they are deeply involved in their church.
[28] Mr. Rose graduated high school and had excellent relationships with teachers and classmates. Earlier though, he experienced serious instances of violent bullying from older students that informed a change of school. He is an exceptional basketball player and volunteered his time to coach in the sport.
[29] On that front, he also extensively volunteered for the non-profit church that has been organized by his parents, which also provides food and clothing to those in need. Mr. Rose has been central to those volunteering endeavours and won awards from the city for his volunteer work.
[30] Mr. Rose has other prosocial interests, like cooking and sports, and was actively motivated to explore his religion and spirituality. He is very close with his family. His mother describes him as a warm, loving, and mild-mannered person and that this offence was shockingly out of character. That was a theme in many of the representations made about Denrick Rose in the numerous, glowing support letters submitted – that this was out of character.
[31] At the time of his arrest, Mr. Rose was completing a college program for Construction Techniques. He hopes to complete the program after serving his sentence. Mr. Rose also engaged in a related apprenticeship with an HVAC company, which he found rewarding and instructive.
[32] While in custody, he has asked to complete valuable coursework, such as the “Thoughts to Action” and “Anger Management” programs. However, due to the notorious challenges at the CECC, this was not possible initially. He completed a “Gospel Echoes” program through an external agency and eventually completed the other referenced programs.
[33] As requested, Mr. Rose was asked about his experiences with racism. Part of his response included a comment that racism “has taken a toll on who I am as a Black male.” This realization has made him more alert and aware of his surroundings than he feels may otherwise be warranted. He has sensed from his time in pretrial detention that Black detainees are treated worse by the authorities. Through counsel, he cited a specific and powerful example.
[34] When invited to address the court, Mr. Rose had prepared handwritten remarks that he tearfully read to the packed courtroom. He mourned the loss of his “revered” friend, Amelia Bal, and took full responsibility for recklessly causing her death. He deeply and repeatedly apologized to the family of Ms. Bal.
[35] Mr. Rose acknowledged that his own pain, remorse, and regret over his choices that night paled in comparison to the immense grief experienced by the loved ones of Ms. Bal. Mr. Rose also shared his deep contrition over the pain of the other passengers who were badly injured and hospitalized. He thanked his family and his church for their unyielding support and love and shared that he was ready to accept the consequences of his actions.
V. Applicable Principles of Sentencing:
[36] The principles of sentencing are codified in section 718 of the Criminal Code. For criminal driving cases involving death and bodily harm, deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing principles engaged. All agree that a custodial term is necessary here.
[37] For youthful first-time offenders like Mr. Rose, rehabilitation, reintegration, and restraint must be considered and central in determining a fit custodial term.[^1] In that regard, I am dutybound to impose the shortest possible term of custody to satisfy the governing sentencing principles and objectives.
[38] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code directs that the sentence imposed must be proportionate, by balancing the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Proportionality is the umbrella and overarching principle of sentencing. While being young and Black cannot inform the gravity of the offence, it can certainly impact the moral responsibility of the offender.
[39] The principle of parity codified in s. 718.2(b) must also be considered, which directs that similar offenders committing similar offences must be similarly sentenced. For that reason, I am reluctant to embrace that line of authority conflating or equating death cases for dangerous driving with impaired driving. Among other concerns, the mens rea is different for both offences and, more generally, offences with the same maximum sentences often attract distinct ranges of sentence.
VI. Sentencing Case Law:
[40] Dangerous driving causing death may cover a wide spectrum of conduct, and thereby attracts a broad range of sentence.[^2] Like manslaughter, the scope of potential culpability is expansive, ranging from the near accidental to the more deliberate and protracted. As a result, there is no provincial or national range of sentence set by appellate courts for this offence. I must consider similar cases involving reasonably analogous facts and offenders to help guide the fit sentence for Mr. Rose.
[41] I have considered all the submitted cases. The following were instructive:
R. v. Trivedi, 2024 ONSC 3936: He received a 5-year sentence for “Dangerous driving causing death”, and a three-year concurrent sentence for “Dangerous driving causing bodily harm”. The offender pleaded guilty on the eve of trial. Mr. Trivedi was speeding on Highway 427 and the Gardiner Expressway at speeds of 150-200 km/hr in a posted 100 km/hr zone. He slammed into the victim’s car, killing the passenger, and causing life-altering injuries to the driver. The offender was 31-years old, had no criminal record, but he had a horrendous driving record that included multiple convictions for speeding.
R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 4598: Mr. Singh received a 3-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death. He made two dangerous driving manoeuvres in snowy conditions several minutes apart while driving a tractor-trailer combination. First, he passed a line of southbound cars by entering the northbound lane, where he caused an oncoming tractor-trailer to take evasive action into the shoulder of the road as the accused cut back sharply just in front of the line of cars he was passing. He made a similar manoeuvre minutes later as he tried to pass a pickup truck he had caught up to. This time, he struck the victim’s truck head-on, killing the other driver.
R. v. Chrisjohn, 2023 ONSC 6299: Ms. Chrisjohn received a global sentence of four (4) years, having pleaded guilty to “dangerous driving causing death” and for “failing to remain” at the scene of a collision. The offender was an 18-year-old indigenous woman. She was unlicensed and intentionally racing against her cousin. The cousin moved into the oncoming lane to pass Ms. Chrisjohn, but the speed of her car prevented him from moving back into the proper lane. As a result, the cousin drove head-on into the victim’s vehicle, killing the driver.
R. v. Rea, 2024 O.J. No. 4893: Mr. Rea was sentenced to 2 years less-a-day for “dangerous driving causing death”. The 19-year-old offender was speeding up to 150 kilometres an hour in a posted 80 kilometre-an-hour zone. At these speeds, he made a dangerous attempt to overtake a vehicle in front of him, despite a solid line restricting such a move on a roadway with a single lane going each way. Moments later, he failed to observe stop sign at a notorious intersection and collided with another vehicle that had the right of way, killing the driver and seriously injuring her passenger. Importantly, there had been 15 collisions at this intersection in the preceding years. The Crown submitted for a 2-year term of incarceration, and successfully opposed a conditional sentence.
VII. Aggravating Factors:
[42] The aggravating factors are obvious. Mr. Rose was driving at unconscionable speeds for a protracted period of time. On Highway 400, he was driving over 200 km/hour at various points in posted speed limits of 100 or 80 km/hr.
[43] He had time to pause and reflect, as the group stopped at a restaurant. Ms. Brown, one of the victims, even told him at that time to slow down when driving as it was unsafe. When they left the restaurant, undeterred, Mr. Rose resumed driving at dangerous and shocking speeds. Again, he travelled over 200 km/hour on Highway 400.
[44] As he exited onto King Road, Mr. Rose sped at speeds between 129 and 210 km/hr in a posted 70 km/hr zone. Poignantly, Amelia Bal implored Mr. Rose to slow down as she was scared. Immediately preceding the collision, the Airbag Control Module of the vehicle confirmed that Mr. Rose was decelerating from a speed of 160km/hr, as the posted speed limit changed from 70 to 50 km/hr.
[45] Moments later, the tragic collision happened, ending Ms. Bal’s life. Ms. Bal’s death is central to the offence and informs the determination of the fit sentence. When there are also multiple victims who suffered bodily harm, that may have a compounding effect on the overall sentence.
[46] The Crown has established the statutorily aggravating fact that the offence has had a devastating and significant impact on the loved ones of Ms. Bal. The family is clearly shattered and remains in active grief with little to no respite. As almost every victim impact statement recounted, the pain and grief of the loss of Ms. Bal feels interminable and unyielding.
[47] The victim impact evidence had powerful emotional effect. So did the thoughtful, anguished and genuinely remorseful words of apology by young Mr. Rose to the court, the community, and the family of Amelia Bal. I cautioned myself to the large audience, and in my reasons here, that highly emotionally charged evidence from victims or offenders, while important and valued, cannot overwhelm the sentencing analysis.
[48] As another aggravating factor, contrary to the restrictions of his G-2 Licence, Mr. Rose allowed four rear-seated passengers with only 3 available seatbelts. He was violating a release order to observe a curfew. If he had only complied with that order, this tragedy would never have happened.
VIII. Mitigating Factors:
[49] In mitigation, Mr. Rose expressed through counsel early on a desire to plead guilty and accept responsibility for the offence. I accept his deeply expressed remorse as sincere, heartfelt, and genuine.
[50] Mr. Rose is a very youthful first-time offender, and just 19-years-old. He is a young Black man, inviting the application of judicial notice of systemic factors and consideration of social context evidence regarding his lived experiences. I accept that there is a sufficient connection between his related experiences and his engagement in the criminal justice system. I will expand on this.
[51] Mr. Rose has been very prosocial for many years, and he has incredibly high prospects of rehabilitation. Indeed, the Crown’s concession that he may not need to be specifically deterred is an illustration of demonstratable good character and his considerable volunteer contributions to uplift and support others. The letters of support are a testament to the otherwise exceptional character of Mr. Rose. He has tremendous support from his family, friends, and church.
[52] Mr. Rose has spent almost a year in presentence custody. I accept there is a sufficient evidentiary record that the time Mr. Rose has spent in presentence custody has been unduly harsh, and this has detrimentally impacted his health.
IX. Impact of Race and Cultural Assessments (IRCA): Young, Black Male
[53] Mr. Rose is a 19-year-old Black man, facing a custodial term as a first-time offender. This is one of several important considerations in this case. As our Court of Appeal shared in its landmark decision of R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680:
It is beyond doubt that anti-Black racism, including both overt and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continues to be, a reality in Canadian society, and in particular in the Greater Toronto Area. That reality is reflected in many social institutions, most notably the criminal justice system. It is equally clear that anti-Black racism can have a profound and insidious impact on those who must endure it on a daily basis.. . Anti-Black racism must be acknowledged, confronted, mitigated and ultimately, erased.[^3]
[54] Being Black can be a relevant factor in determining his moral responsibility for the offence, although great care is required when the connection between race and offending is not easily discerned. Mr. Rose comes from a stable and prosocial, suburban family environment, and church and community service has animated his family life. I will apply a “generous gateway” for the receipt of social context evidence and the application of related judicial notice.
[55] Direct causation is not required to tether a Black offender’s experience with racism to the offence committed. However, there must be some connection between the racism identified and the circumstances or events that may explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue.[^4]
[56] I have already referenced that such a connection exists between Mr. Rose’s lived experience as a Black man and his engagement in this offence. He had been violently bullied at school, necessitating a voluntary transfer. Importantly, he had been shot at in the year or more preceding this tragic driving offence. It is noteworthy that he then completed an anger management course while in detention.
[57] Young Black men are over-represented in all aspects of the criminal justice system, including being victims of gun violence. I find this satisfies the “sufficient connection” between race and offending to warrant applicable mitigation of sentence.
X. Harsh Presentence Custody Conditions:
[58] Mr. Rose has spent almost all his pretrial detention at the Central East Correctional Centre, now notorious for fomenting harsh presentence custody conditions. Regular full or partial lockdowns are almost presumptive with frequent triple-bunking and more difficulties to endure. The head Crown Attorney, accordingly and properly, declined to cross-examine Mr. Rose on his affidavit confirming the harsh conditions of detention and their impact on him. I accept his detention negatively and unduly impacted his physical and mental health.
[59] Our Court of Appeal in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 observed that:
“…particularly harsh incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s.719(3.1). In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider both the conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused.”[^5]
[60] Years later in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, the Court of Appeal clarified:
“Unlike Summers (1.5:1) credit, “Duncan credit” is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration can be a mitigating factor.”[^6]
[61] Importantly, while quantifying this factor as a deduction is common, doing so should not, “skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence.” Again, I accept that Mr. Rose experienced particularly harsh presentence custody conditions for about a year preceding sentence. While I will not quantify the related mitigation, it is an important factor that will qualitatively inform the ultimate sentence.
XI. Final Discussion:
[62] Dangerous driving where death and bodily harm ensues must attract a lengthy custodial term, even for a youthful first-time offender. Our appellate courts have repeatedly directed that denunciation and deterrence are the important sentencing principles in such cases, which are often only satisfied by a lengthy custodial term.
[63] In 2018, Parliament increased the maximum sentence for “dangerous driving causing death” from 14 years to life in imprisonment. Increases in maximum sentences signal Parliament’s intention that sentences must increase. Cases predating this change in 2018 must be cautiously considered. Comparable cases in our province from the past few years support a penitentiary sentence of some length.
[64] On the one hand, the powerful, inexhaustive aggravating factors here are the highly deliberate and protracted dangerous driving, while breaching bail, that resulted in Ms. Bal’s death and grievous injuries to several other passengers. This must be balanced against the early guilty plea by a very young, Black, first-offender with strong rehabilitative prospects. His difficult time in presentence custody must further mitigate sentence.
[65] Mr. Rose does not need to be specifically deterred. He has a significant background of prosocial, community-oriented activity. He has professional goals that he has been working towards. He is demonstrably remorseful and has shown introspection and insight into the offence he has committed. He has very high prospects to be completely rehabilitated.
[66] As the law referenced, criminal driving offences are often committed by prosocial people who would not otherwise come into contact with the law. Mr. Rose falls into that category. This is one of the reasons why the law focuses on general deterrence and denunciation of the conduct.
[67] The number of victims here has a compounding effect and must inform the length of the overall sentence. Ms. Bal’s tragic death was accompanied by significant injuries to three other passengers. Ms. Brown sustained a broken neck, broken pelvis and broken ribs and a bruised lung. Ms. Dueck sustained a broken back and broken shoulder. Mr. Foote was in critical condition with a broken pelvis, skull fracture, and a brain bleed.
[68] The fact that the driver deliberately engaged in risky driving is a cogent aggravating factor in criminal driving cases involving death or bodily harm.[^7] This principle is powerfully and uniquely expressed in the facts of this case and bear repeating.
[69] Mr. Rose drove five passengers at shocking speeds and stopped at a restaurant. One of his passengers told him to slow down during this break. He callously ignored this request and again began driving at egregious speeds. Tragically, a final desperate plea for him to slow down came from the deceased victim, Ms. Bal. Still, Mr. Rose persisted and moments later, he lost control and caused the catastrophic collision.
[70] This confluence of deliberate and protracted dangerous driving is among the most serious to be found in the contemporary case law. It places the dangerous driving of young Mr. Rose at the higher end of moral responsibility. As our Court of Appeal recently and aptly observed for a “dangerous driving causing death” sentence:
“The loss of life and serious injuries caused by the appellant were preventable and devastating… and tragic in the extreme.”[^8]
XII. Conclusion:
[71] I have determined a fit and restrained global sentence is 4.5 years, less standard “Summers” credit of a 1.5-to-1 deduction for each day spent in presentence custody. The sentence attribution by charge is to be broken down as follows:
- 4.5 years for “dangerous driving causing death”;
- 3 years, concurrent, for the “bodily harm” offences;
- 1 year concurrent for the breach of release order;
- DNA - secondary designated, imposed for eligible offences;
- 10-year driving prohibition (or 5.5 years post-custody: s.320.24(5)(a))[^9];
- Victim fine surcharges waived as an undue hardship.
[72] My thanks to counsel.
Released: February 18, 2025
Signed: Justice A. A. Ghosh
[^1]: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, para. 31
[^2]: R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, paras. 165-6; R. v. Phillips, 2005 ONCA 1043, para. 21
[^3]: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, para. 1
[^4]: Morris, para. 97
[^5]: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, para. 6
[^6]: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, para. 52
[^7]: R. v. Currie, 2004 ONCA 5196, para. 5; R. v. Bhangal, 2016 ONCA 857, para. 13; R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 4598, para. 25
[^8]: R. v. Tabaneo, 2024 ONCA 85, para. 104
[^9]: R. v. Hutchinson, 2024 ONCA paras. 5-7