Her Majesty the Queen v. M.D., 2013 ONSC 6997

CITATION: R. v. M.D., 2013 ONSC 6997

COURT FILE NO.: 12-33

DATE: 2013/11/15

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IMPORTANT: CONTENTS CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCASTED OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 486(3) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2013 OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBERT PELLETIER.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

M.D.

Daniel Brisebois, counsel for the Crown

Lorna Paradis, counsel for the Accused

SUBMISSIONS HEARD: October 17, 2013

reasons for sentence

pelletier, j.

Introduction

[1] M.D. has pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life (S. 215(2)(a) C.C.) and criminal negligence causing bodily harm (S. 221 C.C.) in relation to her son, A. The charges relate to the events of August, 2007 to November, 2011 at a time when A. was in his mother’s care. M.D. is jointly charged with the child’s father, A. P.-J., who is to be sentenced on December 5, 2013.

The circumstances of the offenses:

[2] The investigation into the neglect and abuse of this child began as a result of anonymous information received by the Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry on November 18, 2011. Two C.A.S. workers attended the residence of M.D. and Mr. P.-J.. Upon their arrival, they were met by M.D.’s brother. Mr. P.-J. was not home. The workers were allowed into the home and asked to see the couple’s two children, A. 4 years and 3 months old at the time, and I., born in 2011. M.D. immediately began to cry, stating: “It’s really bad in there”. On entering A.’s bedroom, the workers were overwhelmed by the smell of feces. They discovered A., naked in a playpen, covered in fecal matter. The base of the playpen was covered in excrement and urine. The feces in A.’s hair was caked on and matted, requiring part of his hair to be cut off after he was apprehended by the workers. M.D. reported to the workers that A. had not been removed from his room in the previous 3 months. She also related that A. was occasionally left unattended at the home for significant periods of time. A. was examined at the Cornwall Community Hospital later that day. His initial assessment revealed profound neglect, developmental and emotional delays, malnourishment, and significantly compromised hygiene. The attending physician reported dehydration, emaciation and sunken eyes. He lacked muscle tone and weighed 11.5 kgs, well below the average for a child his age. He also displayed two scars to his head with apparent bruising. Fecal matter was found in and around his nose and ears. He was suffering from bacterial skin infections.

[3] The Cornwall Community Police Service was contacted. Family members expressed concerns over the child, stating that they had neither heard from nor seen the child when they visited. M.D. was interviewed. She informed the police that A. was confined to his room for extended periods of time, that he had not been bathed in the month prior to his apprehension, and that he was fed 4 cups of formula once a day. She stated that A. was occasionally hysterical and that this caused her to be frustrated, resulting in A. being struck in the head or choked on occasions, to the point of either losing consciousness or falling asleep.

[4] M.D. stated that she had not bonded with A. since his birth and that she felt no love for him. M.D. also related that A.’s father was only sporadically at the home and was fully aware of A.’s condition and treatment. Finally, photographs taken at the scene confirm the condition of the child’s room as well as his appearance just prior to his apprehension. The photographs, exhibits 3, 4 and 5 in these proceedings, are disturbing. It does not appear as though A.’s younger brother, I., suffered either neglect or abuse.

A.’s condition presently

[5] Two years have passed since A. was apprehended. He is now 6 years old and in the care of his adoptive family. Originally, he had been incapable of expressing any discernable words, and communicated by gestures, facial expressions and grunts. He was unable to support his own weight for any significant period of time. His weight had been in the lower 2 percentile of children his age. His height was in the 3^rd to 15^th percentile at 98 cm. He had received some medical attention at birth and for a period of time, however had not been seen by a physician for over 2 years prior to his apprehension. Fortunately, the child has thrived while in care.

[6] A’s recovery and progress are best expressed by direct reference to a summary of his condition as of this Spring. The summary was prepared by his adoptive parents. It reads:

“When we first met A. in early summer 2012, he was a very active 4 year old, clearly amazed by all of his surroundings and keen to explore and learn, although he was very delayed in all areas. He spoke very few words, and used mostly gestures to express himself. He was very smiley, and protective of his brother.

When A. first came into the CASs care, he was seen by a Children’s psychologist and diagnosed with Global Developmental Delays. He was presenting as an 18 month old, rather than a 4 year old. Recently he was re-evaluated by the same psychologist and found to have overcome this diagnosis. In the short time with us, he has shown phenomenal growth that he is no longer Globally Developmentally Delayed, he now tests within the (low) normal ranges on most of his scores, with the exception of four areas; Receptive Language, Expressive Language, fine and gross motor skills, and Life skills.

His language skills are still a diagnosed delay, however he is making constant gains, and is fully expected to overcome this diagnosis in time as well. Although his fine and gross motor skills are improving daily, A. still struggles with some typical skills like holding pencils, or catching a ball. These too are expected to be overcome with ongoing Occupational Therapy and practice. As for his life skills, such as self-help, interest and willingness to assist and protective instincts he tests at roughly a 6 year old range.

Socially, A. is very friendly and affectionate. When he first came to live with us, he wasn’t comfortable with giving many hugs or kisses to loved ones, but in the 6 months that has all changed. A. now seeks out affection within our family, often hugging us or his brother for no reason, other than simply wanting a hug or to comfort someone.

At school he has friends, who he talks about often, and enjoys making special gifts for. He is reported to play well with his classmates, and participates well in classroom activities. His teachers enjoy working with him, and he loves going to school, often bugging us on weekends to go back to school. He especially loves riding the school bus “like a big boy”.”

[7] It would appear that any developmental delays experienced by I. have also been overcome. Both boys are in the adoptive care of the same family.

M.D’s background and psychiatric/psychological profile

[8] M.D. is 33 years old. She was raised in Cornwall along with her two older brothers. Her parents separated when she was quite young. She maintains occasional contact with certain family members. She did not do well in school. She began using marihuana at an early age, and over the years she has experimented with Gravol, cough syrup, acid, ecstasy, speed, barbiturates and tranquilizers. At a young age she would self-mutilate, and suicidal thoughts, at times, have been considered an issue. She received some psychiatric attention as a teenager and has more recently been diagnosed as suffering from major depression since at least A’s birth. The impact of her mental health issues is described in a February 19, 2013 psychiatric report of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. Dr. Kunjukrishnan writes:

“There is evidence to indicate that M.D. probably has been suffering from symptoms of major depression at least for four years after she had her son, A. These depressive symptoms were manifested in the form of an inability to experience any affection for her son, inability to take care of the baby, intolerance to the baby’s crying, resulting in abusive and neglectful behaviours towards the son. She was also unable to assert her role as a mother and wife with her apparently abusive, controlling, and drug-addicted common-law partner. She did not seek any help from health officials or any help from her family members in taking care of herself and the children.”

[9] M.D.’s psychological profile is described in a July 31, 2012 report, also of the Royal Ottawa Hospital. The report of psychologist Agyare-Kwamena includes the following observations:

“M.D. is likely to experience her depression at the cognitive level by having thoughts of worthlessness, hopelessness, and pessimism. At the affective level, she is reporting feeling moderately sad. She is reporting a moderate degree of stress as a result of difficulties in her current life. M.D. tends to have little interest or investment in social interactions as she does display a submissive style and lacks confidence in social situations. Consequently, she might have difficulty getting her needs met in interpersonal relationships. Her profile types tend to have difficulty understanding the normal nuances of interpersonal behaviours that provide the meaning to personal relations. Profile types are often seen as cold, unfeeling, yet somewhat hostile, tough-minded and intolerant of shortcomings in others. Profile types tend to be more wary and sensitive in interpersonal relations. While active psychotic symptoms might not appear to be a prominent part of the clinical presentation at this time, some difficulties in thinking, concentration, attention, or decision-making are likely. Profile types may present with unusual perceptions or beliefs that others may find as odd. Profile types tend to be impulsive and prone to behaviours likely to be self-harmful or self-destructive, such as substance abuse and/or sex, with little forethought as to the potential consequences of these behaviours.

M.D’s profile seems to describe someone who has depression, presents as odd and eccentric, and may have difficulty making emotional connections with others. Though active psychotic symptoms were not part of the current clinical picture, she might present with unusual perceptions or beliefs which may have some psychotic qualities. Suicidal ideation need to be clinically assessed and monitored. Intellectually, she is functioning at the average level, though her past history of problems with math in school figured significantly in the outcome of the intellectual testing.”

The pre-sentence report

[10] In the pre-sentence report presented to the Court on August 22, 2013, M.D. describes her relationship history and the dynamics between herself and Mr. P.-J. as follows:

“Between the ages of 20 and 23, M.D. was residing common-law for the first time. The relationship was characterized by frequent arguments and fights that became physical. M.D. also alleges that her spouse frequently abused her sexually; however, she never reported the incidents to police. One child was born of this union and that baby was given up for adoption immediately after birth. M.D. advised that the relationship ended in 2004 after she was charged with assaulting her common-law partner.

At the age of 23, M.D. began a common-law relationship with the co-accused, A. P.-J. The couple was together for 8 years until the relationship ended when they were both charged with the offences currently before the Court. M.D. described Mr. P.-J. as very jealous and controlling. She also stated that the co-accused was verbally abusive and had also been physically aggressive on a few occasions; however, these incidents were never reported to police. The co-accused controlled the finances and spending of the couples’ limited income. The co-accused would do all of the grocery shopping and there was usually not enough food for the children. The co-accused would frequently come home with drugs and the couple would abuse the drugs together. Early in the relationship, according to M.D, she became pregnant but terminated the pregnancy. As a result, her common-law spouse accused her of being unfaithful. M.D. stated that from this time forward he was very jealous and controlling. The offender discussed having a tubal ligation with the co-accused, but he refused to allow her to have the procedure done, as he felt she would become unfaithful to him. Two children were eventually born of this union. When M.D. became pregnant with A., both she and the co-accused did not want the child however they had no money for transportation to attend Ottawa for an abortion. Upon A’s birth, M.D. stated that she never bonded with or loved him and she found him very difficult and demanding. M.D. advised that when her second son I. arrived, she found that she loved him and cared for him because he was much easier to handle and smiled a lot. M.D. noted that the co-accused was not helpful with the kids and would leave her alone throughout the day for long periods to deal with the children. She resented the co-accused because he was able to “be high and relaxed and not have to take care of the kids”. She admitted to neglecting her children, specifically A. but she blames the co-accused for not taking an active parenting role. She claims that the co-accused had knowledge of what had been transpiring and had participated in the neglectful behaviour.”

[11] A portion of the pre-sentence report was contested by M.D., specifically the final paragraph of page 5 under the heading “Character/Behaviour/Attitude”. It reads:

“M.D. discussed the events for which she is currently before the Court matter-of-factly and with little affect. She stated that she does not feel bad for what she has done; rather she is happy that the children were removed from her care before it was too late. M.D. believes that “sometimes people just don’t get along” referring to her relationship with her oldest son. She stated that she is capable of reading a person’s aura and that hers and her son’s aura are not compatible. She did not accept responsibility; rather she blamed the co-accused and his mother for not intervening. She stated that her use of illicit drugs compounded the situation. She characterized her use of drugs as a coping mechanism for dealing with stress.”

[12] The accuracy of this passage of the pre-sentence report was litigated. The author of the pre-sentence report testified during the sentence hearing. Her field notes were filed. From that testimony, and the submissions of counsel, the Court has concluded that M.D.’s apparent indifference was manifested to the probation officer quite clearly. The Court has also concluded that read in conjunction with the psychological and psychiatric reports referred to earlier in these Reasons for Sentence, M.D.’s apparent indifference is consistent with and a function of her personality traits and psychiatric profile. That said, it must be noted that M.D.’s choices, though influenced by her character traits and her partner’s conduct, were deliberate, wilful decisions. The moral blameworthiness of her conduct, both neglectful and assaultive towards A. is therefore only mitigated moderately by M.D.’s mental health status and Mr. P.-J.’s negative influences. This is a matter of simple accountability and parental responsibility; both concepts well within M.D.’s grasp.

The positions of counsel

[13] On M.D.’s behalf, Ms. Paradis advocates a sentence of 26 days of pre-trial custody in relation to the charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and a conditional jail sentence of 9 months together with probation for one year on the charge of failing to provide necessaries of life. Mr. Brisebois, on behalf of the Provincial prosecution service, invites the Court to consider a global jail sentence of 24 months together with probation for 3 years as well as a S. 487.053 DNA order and a S. 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years, both ancillary orders being mandatory in the circumstances of this case.

Sentencing principles and provisions

[14] Various provisions of the Criminal Code come into play on the facts of the present case.

[15] As always, the Court is directed, in accordance with S. 718 to consider, in the proportionate relevance of any given case, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

[16] In addition, S. 718.2 codifies the sentencing principles that certain circumstances are considered aggravating in the determination of a fit and proper sentence. In the present case, these statutory aggravating factors include the victims young age (S. 718.2(a)(ii.1), the element of breach of trust (S. 718.2(a)(iii) and that the offence had a significant impact upon the victim (S. 718.2(a)(iii.1)). Further, the Court must, without exception, resort to the least restrictive sanction available which nonetheless achieves the sentencing objectives (S. 718.2(d)(e)).

[17] In connection with the specific offenses, S. 215 of the Criminal Code (Duty of persons to provide necessaries of life) codifies the moral obligation that attaches to parenthood or child care in the following terms:

Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian

or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child

under the age of 16.

[18] S. 215(2) creates the offense of failing to provide necessaries of life where the failure to perform the duty causes or is likely to cause the health of the person to whom the duty is owed to be endangered permanently. Despite A.’s remarkable recovery, the neglect he was subjected to places him in the category referred to above, as confirmed by the medical evidence entered upon the plea of guilty, exhibit 7.

S. 215(3) provides that the maximum penalty for the offense created by S. 215(2) is, on indictment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

[19] The offense of criminal negligence causing bodily harm carries a maximum sentence, on indictment, of 10 years. Defence counsel is correct in pointing out that a conditional jail sentence is only available on count 1 in the present case.

[20] S. 742 permits the imposition of a jail sentence served in the community if certain statutory conditions are met. The jail sentence must be of a duration of less than 2 years. The service of the sentence in the community must not endanger the safety of the community. The sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in S. 718 and 718.2. The offense must not be punishable by a jail sentence of 10 years where bodily harm resulted, and finally, there must be no minimum jail sentence proscribed for the offense. M.D. is therefore only entitled to consideration for a conditional jail sentence in connection with the offense of failing to provide the necessaries of life.

Jurisprudence

[21] The Court has been provided with several authorities on the issue of sentences imposed upon parents who have either neglected or been physically abusive toward their children. The examination of the case law on this issue is not conducted with a view to identifying the single, most similar case in order to simply apply the same sanction. Sentencing is a highly subjective, individualized process and every case is distinguishable. Certain principles and ranges of sentence however arise in the examination of a large body of cases. This enables the Court to determine a fit and proper sentence and correspondingly abide by the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses committed in similar circumstances (S. 718.2(b)).

[22] Certain general principles derive from cases involving child abuse and neglect in its various forms. It is well established that the law must protect children and those who are defenceless or incapable of fending for themselves.

R. v. Cudmore (1972) 1972 CanLII 493 (ON CA), 5 C.C.C. (2d) 536 (Ont. C.A.)

R. v. Cooper [1985] O.J. No. 138 (C.A.)

Paramount among the objectives which sentencing courts must consider in relation to child abuse cases are the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

R. v. S.E.C. [2003] B.C.J. No. 1768 (C.A.)

R. v. McCauley 2007 CanLII 13937 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 1593 (S.C.J.).

[23] A conditional jail sentence, where available by statute, must nonetheless form part of the sentencing analysis where special circumstances exist.

R. v. Ewen (2000) 2000 SKCA 36, 144 C.C.C. (3d) 277 (Sask. C.A.)

R. v. O’Brien 2000 BCCA 199, [2000] B.C.J. No. 669 (C.A.)

[24] Conditional jail sentences can be punitive in nature. While denunciation and deterrence are achievable, in certain circumstances, by the imposition of a sufficiently lengthy and restrictive period of incarceration within the community, conditional jail sentences are more consonant with the principles involving restorative justice; rehabilitation, reparation to the victim and the community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

R. .v. Proulx (2000) 2000 SCC 5, 140 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.).

Parents and caregivers cannot rely on their own personal composition and circumstances in substantial mitigation of sentences for offenses involving prolonged child abuse and neglect where severe consequences result.

R. v. J.H. [1999] E.W.J. No. 5454 (C.A.)

R. v. Turner [2001] E.W.J. No. 2494 (C.A.)

R. v. D.E. [2005] O.J. No. 2589 (S.C.J.)

[25] Conditional jail sentences are more commonly imposed in cases involving single incidents of neglect, as, for instance, cases involving the failure to obtain medical assistance following an unintended injury or condition. In cases involving prolonged, deliberate and persistent neglect or abuse, jail sentences in the mid-to-higher end reformatory range are the norm.

R. v. J.I. (2006) unreported – Information No. 05-5620, O.C.J. Hamilton Ont.

R. v. Beaudry [2006] O.J. No. 5708 (O.C.J.)

R. v. Campbell (2005) unreported – Court Files Nos. CR-05-000209-00 and CR-05-000146-00 S.C.J., Hamilton, Ont.

R. v. Maloney (2012) unreported – Docket: CRAM 346625 N.S.S.C. Amherst, N.S.

R. v. C.M.R. [2004] O.J. No.3356 (O.C.J.)

R. v. E.T. [2012] S.J. No. 279 (Sask. Q.B.)

R. v. D.E., Supra

Mitigating and aggravating factors

[26] Counsel have been very helpful in identifying the circumstances that tend to both decrease and increase the severity with which the present offenses need to be considered and sanctioned.

[27] Ms. Paradis, in her written submissions highlights the following considerations in support of a jail sentence to be served in a form of house arrest:

1. M.D. has entered guilty pleas despite a number of triable issues:

− her statement to police was arguably inadmissible: voluntariness and Sections 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were live issues.

− her statement to her brother derived from her statement to police and, although not to a person in authority could arguably be inadmissible.

− the medical evidence was equivocal: it did not support the history of events as conveyed by the accused with respect to the severity of physical abuse of the child.

2. A lengthy and difficult trial has been avoided.

3. M.D.’s background as outlined in Dr. Kunjukrishnan’s report indicates that a high level of dysfunction and abuse was endured in her family of origin both by M.D. and by one of her brothers.

4. At the time of these offences, M.D.’s mental health was severely compromised due to post-partum depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and her addiction to various substances, including methamphetamines.

5. Her physical health was also compromised. She was controlled by her spouse, confined, malnourished, and suffered from extensive sleep deprivation.

6. Her contact with her community was limited. CAS had closed their file when she was about to give birth to her younger child. Her boyfriend had cut off her contact with her few friends and her immediate family.

7. Although M.D. wanted to place her older child for adoption, her boyfriend would not allow her to do so as he wanted the child tax credit for drugs. Similarly, he would not allow her to take the children to daycare. He would not assist with the children, would keep M.D. up all night high on drugs, controlled all of the money, and would not provide sufficient food, formula or diapers.

8. M.D. re-established contact with her mother and revealed enough of the true state of affairs concerning the child to cause reports to be made. She allowed her brother access to the child’s room, cooperated with the CAS in the apprehension of her children, cooperated with the police in their investigation, and did not oppose the Crown Wardship and adoption order made by the Family Court, including of the younger child with whom she had a real bond.

9. During her more than 20 months on bail, M.D. has attended Addiction Services and addressed her drug issues. She has engaged in therapy with Dr. Kunjukrishnan, has undergone a number of assessments, and has cooperated with the John Howard Society Bail Supervisor’s Order.

10. M.D. is now in receipt of ODSP. She continues to see Dr. Kunjukrishnan. She resides in one room in a motel. House arrest would not provide her more spacious accommodation than a jail cell.

11. She has endured first hand the abhorrence of others with respect to her actions. She must live forever with the loss of her younger child, I., and with her memories of her behaviour toward her older child and the conditions she left him in. She knows she will never be able to again have the care and control of any child.

12. By all accounts the children are doing well in their new home and the older child is overcoming the deprivation and abuse he sustained prior to his apprehension.

[28] On the Crown’s behalf, Mr. Brisebois points to the following aggravating factors:

1. The age and defencelessness of A.

2. The element of breach of trust, M.D. occupying a primary care given role of an infant child.

3. The various forms of abuse, including actual violence in the form of blows to the head and choking.

4. The prolonged nature of the neglect in all areas of child care including nutrition, hygiene, medical attention, mobility and exercise, warmth and nurturing, and interaction with others including his sibling and extended family.

5. The targeting of A. for abuse and neglect in circumstances where his younger brother received adequate care, attention and affection – tending to demonstrate M.D.’s ability to care properly for a child notwithstanding her emotional and psychological limits and any influence exerted upon her by Mr. P.-J.

6. The impact of the mistreatment upon A. including developmental delays in the areas of physical, intellectual and emotional growth.

7. The readily available options which presented themselves to M.D. including recourse to other family members, social services, medical services, or the simple termination of the abuse and neglect without CAS and police intervention.

8. Lack of remorse and empathy concerning A.’s plight in contrast to what is argued to be more egocentric concerns and regrets.

Analysis and conclusions

[29] M.D. has admitted to severely neglecting and in some circumstances, physically abusing her young son. She has no prior related record with the exception of an assault flowing from a failed relationship where she was in her early 20’s. She has suffered the loss of her children and significant ostracization by her community and to some extent her family. The neglect and abuse visited upon A. came at a time when M.D. was dependant, financially and psychologically, upon A.’s father, who clearly had nothing but his own interests at heart.

[30] M.D. suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and drug dependency at the operative time. She has abided by her bail conditions and has made significant gains in various areas of her life. The convergence of several unique factors which contributed to these offenses has been eliminated making M.D. less likely to re-offend. She has stated that she has no intention of having other children.

[31] That said, the abuse and neglect visited upon A. offends the community’s standards of child care at its core. The condition in which he was found, living for weeks in his own waste, barricaded, as it were, in a room without attention, affection or human contact requires a sentence that pronounces a clear condemnation and a stern warning to others. It is perhaps the element of isolation and confinement, quite apart from the other forms of abuse and neglect, which makes the facts of the present case particularly troubling.

[32] M.D. was, despite personal challenges and Mr. P.-J.’s negative influences, quite capable of at least adequate child care. She demonstrated this in her care of I. Her remorse is questionable. The Court is not indifferent to M.D.’s psychological profile which renders her incapable of the expressive and meaningful communication of personal feelings. She is very withdrawn and introverted. Her genuine sadness concerning the loss of her children is however limited to I.

[33] Despite the horrendous conditions in which A. was raised and the enormous impact in all areas of his development, M.D.’s detachment still manifests itself in her expression of relief only that A. is now well cared for. Taking into consideration the entire scope of the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the proper range of sentence, in order to achieve the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence, without losing sight of restorative objectives, is an actual jail term in the range of 12 to 18 months.

[34] The mitigating factors identified as well as the pre-sentence custody already served compel the Court to impose a global sentence of 12 months incarceration. The sentence will be as follows:

On count 1, failing to provide the necessaries of life, M.D. will be sentenced to a period of incarceration of 12 months. The jail sentence will be followed by a period of probation of 24 months, which shall include the statutory conditions as well as the following conditions:

1. Report as directed to a Probation Officer;

2. Attend outpatient psychiatric assessment and treatment as directed;

3. Attend and participate all rehabilitative programming as directed;

4. Abstain from the care or custody of any child under the age of 12 without prior approval of the Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

In addition, an order is made for the taking of such samples as reasonably required for the purpose of DNA analysis pursuant to Section 487.051 of the Criminal Code. An order pursuant to Section 109 is made prohibiting the possession of firearms or weapons as defined for a period of 10 years.

M.D. is further sentenced to a period of 6 months incarceration on count 2, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, to be served concurrently to count 1, for a combined total jail sentence of 12 months.

Justice Robert Pelletier

Released: November 15, 2013

CITATION: R. v. M.D., 2013 ONSC 6997

COURT FILE NO.: 12-33

DATE: 2013/11/15

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IMPORTANT: CONTENTS CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCASTED OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 486(3) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2013 OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBERT PELLETIER.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

M.D.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Justice Robert Pelletier

Released: November 15, 2013