R. v. Hunter, 2015 ONSC 325
COURT FILE NO.: 339-12
DATE: 20150119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
Kenny Matthew Gary Hunter
Accused
Kevin Ludgate, for the Crown
Robert J. Beckett, for the Accused
HEARD: December 10, 2014
ORAL DECISION ON SENTENCE
Cornell j.:
Overview
[1] On October 3, 2014, Mr. Hunter was convicted by a jury of an aggravated assault that occurred on November 2, 2011. After hearing submissions from counsel on December 10, 2014, I am now called upon to impose sentence.
Factual Background
[2] Late on the evening of November 1st, and into the early morning hours of November 2nd, 2011, a social gathering took place at the residence of Emma Laderoute in the Hamlet of Webbwood, Ontario. At any given point in time, there were some six to nine individuals who were present. Beer was being consumed.
[3] At some point in the evening, it became apparent that Mr. Hunter was intoxicated. He knocked over some beer bottles and is alleged to have picked up a photograph of the host’s parents and thrown it across the room. The host considered this to be a disrespectful act and asked that he leave.
[4] According to the witnesses called by the Crown, after exiting the house, Mr. Hunter proceeded to stand by the roadside and start yelling. It was estimated that this conduct continued for five or ten minutes. At that juncture, Joe Pollard went outside and stood about two feet in front of Mr. Hunter. He asked him to leave as they were concerned that the police would be called if the disturbance was to continue. At one point in time, Mr. Pollard fully extended his arm to show the direction in which Mr. Hunter was to leave. According to the evidence of Mr. Pollard and the other Crown witnesses, Mr. Hunter then proceeded to pull a beer bottle from his pocket and smash it over Mr. Pollard’s face. The bottle exploded. A tussle on the ground ensued momentarily and the parties then separated.
[5] Joe Pollard came back to the house and sat down. Mr. Hunter left with his friend, Tobias Blais.
[6] Mr. Hunter and Tobias Blais told a different story. They indicated that Joe Pollard followed Mr. Hunter as he left the residence and attacked him on three separate occasions. In each case, the confrontation was broken up by Tobias Blais. Mr. Hunter testified that when Joe Pollard attempted to assault him a third time, he threw the beer bottle at Joe Pollard in order to defend himself.
Fact Finding
[7] Before embarking on the sentencing process, it is necessary that I accept as proven the facts that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty in accordance with ss. 724(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.
[8] An affirmative defence was advanced on the basis of self-defence. Defence counsel argued that it was open to the jury to reject self-defence on the basis that the amount of force used was excessive in the circumstances. Given the way that the evidence unfolded, I am of the view that given the two very different versions of events that were available for the jury to consider, it was clear from their decision that they had rejected the self-defence argument and accepted the evidence put forward by the Crown that the actions of Mr. Hunter constituted an illegal act in that he did wound Joe Pollard by striking him in the face with a beer bottle and was therefore guilty of aggravated assault.
Mr. Hunter’s Background
[9] A pre-sentence report was prepared for my consideration.
[10] The report indicates that Mr. Hunter was born in Sudbury, but moved to Nairn Centre with his family as a young child. The report goes on to say that Mr. Hunter had a “turbulent childhood, mainly due to a problematic home environment”. His mother suffered from mental health and addiction concerns which resulted in frequent conflict between his parents. In order to avoid this conflict, Mr. Hunter would frequently retreat to his grandmother’s house referring to her as his “go-to” person during his childhood.
[11] His grandmother died when he was in his early twenties. His father died five years ago. Mr. Hunter has infrequent contact with his mother.
[12] For the past three years, Mr. Hunter has been involved in a common-law relationship with Brenda Heaton. He is stepfather to her two children, a 13-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl. Ms. Heaton reports that Mr. Hunter is the “main provider” for the family.
[13] Since he was young, Mr. Hunter has battled anxiety and feelings of low self-worth. As a result of his personal anxiety, he experienced concentration problems and eventually dropped out of high school. Since that time, the information provided shows that Mr. Hunter has been employed for most of his adult life. A letter from his current employer states:
This is to confirm Kenny Hunter is a permanent full-time employee of Fuller Industrial. He was hired in June 2010 as General Labour and has since received training enabling him to work in several areas of our facility. Throughout his employment here he has moved up from General Labour [sic] to the position of Rubber Liner… When he is at work he proves himself to be a hard-worker and carries out his duties in a professional and safe manner.
[14] Mr. Hunter started drinking at age 12. By his late teens and early twenties, he was drinking every day. Mr. Hunter reports that he did this in order to reduce his anxiety and deal with his feelings of low self-esteem. Following his involvement with the criminal justice system, he completed a 27-day substance abuse program in Elliot Lake, Ontario. In order to satisfy a probation condition, he also completed a 35-day substance abuse program in Sunridge, Ontario, in 2008.
[15] Approximately seven years ago, Mr. Hunter broke his jaw. He was prescribed Percocet to deal with the pain. He became addicted to the drug. In order to deal with this addiction, Mr. Hunter entered a Methadone program. He indicates that he has not used opiates in approximately three years.
[16] Mr. Hunter has been taking Effexor, an anti-depressant, for the past three years in order to help control his anxiety.
Criminal Record
[17] Mr. Hunter has a criminal record.
[18] In November of 2007, he was found guilty of assault, two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance and failure to comply with a probation order. He received a fine in an amount of $750 and was placed on probation for two years. On one count of failure to comply with a recognizance, he was sentenced to time served which consisted of 14 days’ imprisonment.
[19] In June of 2008, Mr. Hunter was found guilty of assaulting a peace officer, failing to comply with a recognizance and failing to comply with a probation order. In addition to receiving credit for 17 days of pre-sentence custody, he was sentenced to one day on each charge to be served concurrently and a period of probation for one year.
[20] In July of 2008, Mr. Hunter received a sentence of time served which consisted of one day for failing to comply with a probation order.
[21] In November of 2008, Mr. Hunter was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, theft under $5,000, two counts of obstruction of justice, and failing to comply with a probation order. He received a nine-month conditional sentence and was prohibited from driving for a period of twelve months.
[22] During the time that he was out on bail in connection with the predicate offence, he pled guilty to a breach of recognizance as a result of purchasing three cans of beer at a time when his recognizance precluded him from possessing or consuming alcohol. His common-law wife who was his surety discovered the purchase and immediately reported the matter to the police. A fine in an amount of $750 was imposed following a guilty plea.
Victim Impact Statement
[23] At the time that he testified, Joe Pollard indicated that the wound that he received has resulted in a significant facial scar. Prior to the assault, Mr. Pollard indicated that he was a confident individual. He has now grown a full beard in order to partially conceal the scar. He is constantly asked about the scar.
[24] This information was confirmed in a victim impact statement that was filed on behalf of Joe Pollard at the time that sentencing submissions were made.
Position of the Crown/Defence
[25] It is the position of the Crown that the appropriate sentence is two years less a day given the fact that this was a serious assault. The Crown is also asking for two years’ probation, a s. 109 prohibition order as well as a DNA sample.
[26] Defence counsel suggests that given Mr. Hunter’s background and the strides that he has recently made, he should receive a 90-day intermittent sentence that would allow him to continue with his employment in order to support his family, together with a period of probation with appropriate conditions.
Law
Criminal Code Provisions
[27] The fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code as follows:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[28] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code requires that a sentence be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”.
[29] I am also to be guided by the sentencing principles contained in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code which, among other things, requires me to take into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and to impose a sentence which is similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. By virtue of ss. 718.2(d) and (e), an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders.
Case Law
[30] The Crown drew my attention to four cases.
[31] In R. v. MacDonald, 2010 ONCA 178, 259 O.A.C. 308, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment followed by 12 months’ probation for a conviction of aggravated assault. In that case, Mr. MacDonald threw a beer bottle at the complainant and hit him in the face knocking him unconscious. Even though Mr. MacDonald was a youthful first offender, the sentence was upheld on the basis that the degree of violence was serious and that denunciation and deterrence were the paramount sentencing considerations.
[32] In R. v. Addley, 2012 ONSC 137, [2012] O.J. No. 25, aff’d 2013 ONCA 50, [2013] O.J. No. 337, Koke J. imposed a sentence of 18 months followed by 3 years’ probation. Following an earlier altercation, the complainant found himself confronted by James Barr, the fellow that he had fought earlier that evening, and Mr. Barr’s cousin, Kevin Addley. The complainant was instructed to get down on his knees and apologize to Mr. Barr. As he got to his knees and was about to apologize, Mr. Addley struck him in the face at which point the complainant was repeatedly kicked. The complainant was rendered unconscious.
[33] I consider this case to be of little assistance. The facts indicate that two individuals attacked a person who was on his knees and about to apologize. After rendering the complainant unconscious, the beating continued. These aggravating facts are not present in the case before me.
[34] In the case of R. v. Stalker, 2011 BCSC 1401, [2010] B.C.J. No. 1950, the accused struck the complainant in the head with a beer bottle after the complainant asked the accused to dance with the complainant’s group. The accused replied “I don’t dance with brown guys” and proceeded to strike the complainant in the head with a beer bottle with the result that the complainant’s face was severely cut and resulted in a fairly large scar down his cheek.
[35] This assault was unprovoked, violent and caused serious harm to the complainant. Despite the fact that Mr. Stalker was only 22 years of age at the time of being sentenced, a sentence of two years less a day was imposed.
[36] Finally, the Crown referred me to R. v. Rai, 2013 BCSC 1826, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2192. In that case, the 24-year-old accused sucker punched the complainant who was attempting to act as a Good Samaritan by trying to calm down a situation where two groups were about to confront one another. The blow resulted in permanent blindness in the left eye as well as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Rai was sentenced to two years less one day together with probation for a period of three years.
[37] I also considered R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, [2011] O.J. No. 1245. In this decision, Code J. conducts a review of the law and reaches the following conclusions:
• at the bottom end, an exceptional case can result in a suspended sentence and probation;
• mid-range cases result in a sentence of between 18 months and two years less a day; and
• high end cases result in terms of imprisonment from four to six years.
[38] In R. v. Peters, 2010 ONCA 30, 265 O.A.C. 148, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a suspended sentence plus three years’ probation that had been imposed by the trial judge. In that case, the accused struck the victim’s head with a beer bottle causing two lacerations to the victim’s face that required twenty-one stitches to close. One year after the assault, the victim was still experiencing pain in her left eye and face, headaches and facial asymmetry. The facial scar remained visible.
[39] The accused was 26 years old at the time that she entered her guilty plea. Although she did not have a prior criminal record as an adult, she had two prior convictions as a youth, including one for assault causing bodily harm. The Gladue report indicated that the accused had a difficult upbringing involving violence and alcohol abuse. As an adult, she went on to abuse alcohol and drugs. In evaluating the approach taken by the trial judge, the Court of Appeal had this to say at paras. 13-14:
[13] In the end – after balancing all of the factors relative to sentencing an aboriginal person, and after taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to it, the contents of the favourable Gladue report he had before him, the victim impact statements, and the particular circumstances of this offender – the sentencing judge simply decided that a period of incarceration was not the appropriate disposition for this offender in relation to this crime. He concluded:
In the end result, I am not satisfied that a period of incarceration is necessary either for the purpose of expressing denunciation or deterrence in this case. Further, a period of incarceration manifestly fails to achieve the restorative purpose that is of particular importance in the case of Aboriginal offenders. A period of incarceration would undoubtedly cause Ms. Peters to lose her job and then quite possibly set back the progress that she has made over the past few years. At the same time, however, I appreciate that there needs to be some close supervision of Ms. Peters in an effort to ensure that she does not commit a further offence.
[14] It was open to the sentencing judge to come to this conclusion on the record before him. To say that the balance will often tilt in favour of deterrence and denunciation in the case of serious and violent offences, as this Court did in W.(R.), is not to say that it always will. Neither Gladue nor its progeny establish that aboriginal offenders are to be sentenced to terms of incarceration in all cases of serious offences. At the end of the day, as many authorities have noted, it remains for the sentencing judge to consider the case as a whole and to arrive at a sentence that is fit and just in the circumstances. [Emphasis in original.]
[40] The Crown put the proposition to the court that someone who uses a beer bottle that results in a serious wound and facial scarring must serve a custodial sentence. This position was specifically rejected by the Court of Appeal in Peters, at para. 19:
Respectfully, while such a result may often be the case, to say that an offender in such circumstances – particularly an aboriginal offender – must serve a custodial sentence is to state the sentiment too strongly, and is inconsistent with the Gladue jurisprudence and, indeed, the jurisprudence respecting sentencing generally. [Emphasis in original.]
Aggravating/Mitigating Factors
[41] The aggravating factors as advanced by the Crown include the fact that there was no provocation, the victim was unarmed, and the assault resulted in a serious injury in the form of a permanent facial scar.
[42] The mitigating factors include the following:
• Mr. Hunter has been gainfully employed for most of his adult life despite not having finished high school. Most recently, he has been steadily employed with the Fuller Industrial Corporation since 2010. The letter from his employer filed at the time of sentencing indicates that Mr. Hunter is a “hard-worker and carries out his duties in a professional and safe manner.”
• Brenda Heaton has been Mr. Hunter’s common-law partner since August 2011. She was present during much of the trial and at the time that sentencing submissions were made. She submitted a letter indicating that Mr. Hunter has “become the main provider for my family and has become a wonderful stepfather to my children, Dannika age 11 and Taylor age 13.” She reports that he has been alcohol free since the incident that gave rise to this charge.
• Kevin Hunter is Kenny Hunter’s older brother by nine years. Kevin Hunter’s background suggests that he is a very responsible individual. He observed that by Kenny Hunter’s early to mid-twenties, Kenny had developed a serious alcohol problem. As a result, Kevin Hunter chose to have little to do with his brother. In a letter filed at the time of the sentencing submissions, Kevin Hunter stated:
Since Kenny was charged in 2011, he has not had any alcohol and has made visible changes in his lifestyle and overall attitude. He realizes his errors and knows now he is on the right path. We have become very close and he depends on me for advice and support. I have noticed he is more focused and a lot more ambitious. His change in my opinion is mainly due to the fact that he has a family now and is happy with where he is in life… He is not the same person he was three years ago. He has been in treatment before but I believe the biggest changes and best rehabilitation I have seen to this point is the responsibility of maintaining a household and having people depend on him. He has become a responsible, contributing member of society and is helping to raise and support children that are not his own…. The bail conditions Kenny has been under have made things difficult for him and I am proud of him for adhering to them while maintaining his full-time job and taking care of his family. He is a man that I am proud to call my Brother.
• On any version of events, the assault was not planned or pre-meditated.
• After the blow with the beer bottle, there was a minor scuffle when the parties fell to the ground. Once again, on any version of the facts, Mr. Hunter made no effort to continue the assault after the initial blow.
• With respect to the issue of remorse, the pre-sentence report states “the offender’s feelings about the offence are indistinct; on the one hand he feels remorse for his actions, but retains feelings of unfairness about the verdict.”
Analysis
[43] There can be no doubt that the actions of Mr. Hunter resulted in a serious injury to Joe Pollard. The Crown suggests that denunciation and deterrence are the primary factors to be taken into consideration in an offence of this nature. Defence counsel takes a very different view. It is suggested that this incident has motivated Mr. Hunter to examine his circumstances and choices and to make the changes that are necessary in order to allow him to make proper choices in the future.
[44] Like so many others that come before this court, Mr. Hunter “experienced a turbulent childhood, mainly due to a problematic home environment” according to the pre-sentence report. His criminal conduct has always involved the use of alcohol. His common-law partner and brother both indicate that he has not used alcohol in over three years.
[45] When Mr. Hunter was asked if there was anything that he wished to say before I imposed sentence, he spoke at some length. He did so in an emotional and tearful manner. He stated that he very much regrets the injury that he caused to Joe Pollard and the inconvenience that he has caused the criminal justice system. In his comments to the court, Mr. Hunter indicated that he has, at age 32, learned the error of his ways. He admitted that he was an alcoholic. He acknowledged that alcohol will bring him into the court system where his fate will rest in the hands of others and ultimately result in a lonely, painful existence and death. He said that the most important thing for him was to be a good family man, to be a good husband and step-father. He indicated that he has been taught to express his feelings rather than to hold them in. He uses a journal to help him cope with his anxiety. He begged for mercy and asked that his sentence not interfere with his ability to continue with his employment and to provide for his family.
[46] As I stated, Mr. Hunter’s appeal was an emotional one. Be that as it may, I have assessed what he had to say in an objective manner. I am of the opinion that Mr. Hunter was sincere when he was speaking to the court. His track record of employment, stability, compliance with strict bail conditions (with one exception as previously mentioned) are all evidence that he will be able to continue with the changes that he has made in his life.
[47] If Mr. Hunter is incarcerated for two years less a day, he will lose his job. His family will have no means of support. He will be in an environment that will hardly be conducive to the new path that he is following. To a great extent, he will be removed from the support of his partner and his brother.
[48] When I was a lawyer, I had a client in similar circumstances. He was charged with a serious weapons offence after he brandished a hunting rifle at his common-law spouse and subsequently a police officer who responded to a domestic disturbance call. He was heavily intoxicated at the time.
[49] It took approximately three years for the case to work its way through the system. At that time, the individual had married, had a child and had been steadily employed. He had not consumed any alcohol since the day in question. Rather than jeopardize the progress that the individual had made, the trial judge imposed a suspended sentence and probation. When the Court of Appeal heard the case about one year later, the sentence was upheld on the basis that it would be counter-productive to impose a prison sentence when such meaningful changes had been made.
[50] Those events occurred more than 25 years ago. The individual continues to be a good husband and good father. He has never consumed alcohol since the day of the offence. How different things might have turned out if a lengthy jail sentence had been imposed so as to interrupt the progress that had been made.
[51] The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452, 101 O.R. (3d) 1, is also instructive. In that case, Jacko and four others engaged in a serious home invasion. With one exception, the intruders wore masks. One of the occupants of the home was punched and kicked in the head and ribs. The occupant’s head was then pushed through drywall. Another intruder pressed a knife about one foot long to the throat of another occupant. The home was vandalized and property was stolen.
[52] At the time of these offences, Jacko was about to turn 19 years of age. He had a criminal record for assault and aggravated assault, possession of property obtained by crime and four convictions for breach of a recognizance.
[53] The trial judge sentenced Jacko to four years’ imprisonment given the serious nature of the offences as well as the existence of the prior criminal record. The appeal was allowed and Jacko was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less one day. In coming to this decision, the Court of Appeal observed that the trial judge failed to accord sufficient weight to the accused’s aboriginal heritage and to the recommendations of the sentencing circle. Despite the fact that denunciation and deterrence would ordinarily prevail in cases involving such violence, the Court of Appeal indicated that a consideration of the range of previous sentences imposed in similar cases should not be treated as establishing de facto minimum sentences.
[54] Apart from this, the Court of Appeal closely examined Jacko’s circumstances after the offences had been committed. The Court observed that Jacko had stopped using drugs and drinking alcohol. He had completed his final year of high school with honors. He got a job and worked hard. Jacko began and continued a relationship with a woman that provided a stable home environment. Two children were born of this union. After graduating from high school, Jacko achieved considerable academic success at Canadore College and his future looked bright. In summarizing Jacko’s circumstances at the time of sentencing, the Court of Appeal observed at para. 88:
By the time sentence was imposed, Jacko had remedied his educational deficiencies, purged his addictions, jettisoned his anti-social lifestyle, abandoned his confederates and taken on spousal and parenting responsibilities. The passage of time since sentencing confirms the legitimacy of his efforts. College admission. Employment. Spousal and child support. Community involvement.
[55] The Court went on to address the approach to be taken when a court is considering sentencing ranges. The Court observed at para. 90:
Sentencing “ranges”, such as that described in Wright, are not immovable or immutable. They are and represent guidelines, of greater or lesser utility depending upon the breadth of the range. Individual cases may fall within or outside the range. To consider a range of sentence as creating a de facto minimum sentence misses the point, ignores the fundamental principle of proportionality and is not faithful to the teachings of Wright itself. Individual circumstances matter.
[56] I am faced with a very similar set of facts and circumstances in this case, apart from the fact that Mr. Hunter is not of Aboriginal heritage. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Mr. Hunter was raised in an unstable home environment and suffered a “turbulent childhood” much like many of the Aboriginal offenders who find themselves before the court.
[57] Like Mr. Jacko, Mr. Hunter has a serious criminal record. Like Mr. Jacko, Mr. Hunter has “purged his addictions, jettisoned his antisocial lifestyle, abandoned his confederates and taken on spousal and parenting responsibilities. The passage of time since sentencing confirms the legitimacy of his efforts.” Like Mr. Jacko, Mr. Hunter has been steadily employed and is the family bread winner.
[58] Mr. Hunter has taken on spousal and parenting responsibilities. Mr. Hunter’s brother, who had previously forsaken him due to his alcoholic and irresponsible behaviour, has become close to his brother. As previously mentioned, Mr. Hunter’s brother observes in the letter filed by him at the sentencing hearing:
He is not the same person he was three years ago. He has been in treatment before but I believe the biggest changes and best rehabilitation I have seen to this point is the responsibility of maintaining a household and having people depend on him. He has become a responsible, contributing member of society and is helping to raise and support children that are not his own… The bail conditions Kenny has been under have made things difficult for him and I am proud of him for adhering to them while maintaining his full-time job and taking care of his family. He is a man that I am proud to call my Brother.
[59] Like Mr. Jacko, the changes that Mr. Hunter has undertaken have continued for more than three years. This provides me with a measure of assurance that such changes will continue in the future.
[60] As judges, we use our training and experience when we are called upon to exercise our discretion. Although I fully appreciate that this was a very serious offence that would ordinarily call for an upper reformatory sentence, I am of the view that when all the facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, this is an exceptional case within the meaning of Peters and Jacko. Accordingly, a suspended sentence is appropriate. I am imposing a suspended sentence as that will provide an additional element of control over Mr. Hunter as opposed to the imposition of a 90-day intermittent sentence.
[61] Mr. Hunter has been subject to strict bail conditions for more than three years. The imposition of a suspended sentence and three years’ probation means that Mr. Hunter will have been under state control for more than six years. If Mr. Hunter commits any offence during the period of his probation, the suspended sentence will be lifted and an appropriate sentence will be imposed.
Disposition
[62] Mr. Hunter please stand up:
Suspended Sentence
I suspend the passing of sentence. In accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code, if you commit an offence in the next three years, you will be brought back before me and I will impose an appropriate sentence.
Probation
You are to be subject to three years of probation on the following terms and conditions:
report to a probation officer as directed and be under their supervision;
appear before the Superior Court of Justice at Sudbury, Ontario, when required to do so by the court;
remain within the Province of Ontario unless written permission to go outside this province is obtained in advance from your probation officer;
notify the court and your probation officer in advance and in writing of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court and your probation officer of any change of employment, educational attendance, occupation or family circumstances;
provide for the support of your partner, Brenda Heaton, and your dependent children;
perform 240 hours of community service during the three year term of your probation in an activity approved by your probation officer;
take counselling and treatment as directed by your probation officer, including signing any release of information that will permit your probation officer to share and obtain information from your primary care physician, any other physician, assessors and/or treatment providers, and to obtain any and all assessments in their possession and control;
not to associate, contact or communicate with Joseph Pollard directly or indirectly nor be within 100 meters of his home or place of business;
not to associate, contact or communicate directly or indirectly in any way with any persons known to you to have a criminal record, except family members approved by your probation officer;
you will undertake any counselling or programming for substance abuse, anger management or such other programs that may be recommended by your probation officer;
you shall not possess or consume alcoholic beverages;
you shall not possess or consume any drugs other than drugs that may be prescribed for you by a licensed physician; and
you will keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Ancillary Orders
you shall provide a DNA sample in accordance with s. 487.05(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
you shall be prohibited from possessing any weapons for a ten year period pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Dan Cornell
Released: January 19, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Hunter, 2015 ONSC 325
COURT FILE NO.: 339-12
DATE: 20150119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
Kenny Matthew Gary Hunter
ORAL DECISION ON SENTENCE
Cornell J.
Released: January 19, 2015