CITATION: R. v. Johnson, 2015 ONSC 80

COURT FILE: CRIMJ(F) 687/13

DATE: 2015 01 07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

A. S. Weinstock, for the Crown

• and -

TERAN JOHNSON

T. MacKay, for the Defence

HEARD: December 16, 2014

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

HILL J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] Facing trial upon an indictment charging four counts of trafficking cocaine, Mr. Johnson pled guilty to two counts (count #’s 1 and 4) at the scheduled trial sittings.

[2] As to the remaining two counts (count #’s 2 and 3), the defence agreed that the facts relating to those allegations could be “read in for the purpose of sentencing”.

[3] It falls to be determined what a fit and just sentence is for this offender.

FACTS OF THE OFFENCES

Count #1

[4] On September 27, 2012, a Peel Regional Police Service (PRPS) investigation into drug trafficking targetted the Yorkshire Arms Pub in Mississauga. During the evening, an undercover officer (F) spoke to an unknown male in the establishment who agreed to sell her $100 worth of cocaine.

[5] The vendor did not then have cocaine. He declined to have F meet his supplier. After meeting with the offender, the vendor returned to the bar and completed the transaction with F. F. received .85 g. of powdered cocaine for $100.

Count #2

[6] On October 9, 2012, F negotiated directly with the offender by cellphone for the purchase of $100 worth of cocaine. At a meeting in a parking lot in Mississauga on this date, the offender trafficked .90 g. of powdered cocaine to F. for $100.

Count #3

[7] On October 16, 2012, after cellphone contact with the offender to arrange a transaction and a meeting at the Yorkshire Arms Pub, F. received 1.35 g. of powdered cocaine for a $100 payment.

[8] On this date, F. explored with the offender a future transaction for a larger amount of cocaine, perhaps half an ounce.

Count #4

[9] After telephone contact, F. met the offender on October 24, 2012 at the Yorkshire Arms Pub for a further sale. At a meeting in the parking lot, F. paid $700 for 12.45 g. of powdered cocaine.

[10] With near, but not completely continuous, surveillance of the offender by the PRPS after the buy, he was traced to his residence within 22 minutes. On search incident to arrest, the police discovered the offender to be in possession of two cellphones, $1,850 CAN and $101 US. The offender was no longer in possession of the traceable buy money.

[11] Execution of a C.D.S.A. search warrant at the residence located no drug paraphernalia. A handgun, which the offender was lawfully authorized to possess, was seized.

The Offender

[12] The offender was aged 26 years at the time of the commission of the offences. He is now 28 years old.

[13] Mr. Johnson had an unremarkable upbringing. He graduated from High School and went on to secure a diploma in Corporate and Commercial Security from the Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology.

[14] The offender was keen to work in the private investigation field. He acquired employment in that field but was unexpectedly dismissed on account of a criminal matter before the courts although he was discharged at the preliminary inquiry in that proceeding.

[15] The offender’s loss of employment, and inability to find similar work, led to frustration, upset and the stress of the financial pressures of a $26,000 Ontario Student Assistance Program loan as well child support obligations.

[16] Mr. Johnson has an eight-year-old daughter from a prior relationship. He exercises parental access and pays child support. The offender has been in a relationship with T.G. for a number of years. Together they have a six-year-old son.

[17] Over time, the offender has been periodically employed in his father’s home renovation business. That work no longer continues as the offender’s father is ill with colon cancer.

[18] Currently, the offender is working as an independent contractor for a licenced real estate agent, providing clerical and marketing assistance between 35 and 50 hours a week Monday to Friday.

[19] The offender does not have a criminal record.

[20] The Presentence Report author made these observations:

Before the Court is [a] 28 year old first time offender, Teran Johnson. He demonstrates a willingness to make amends and accepts responsibility for his actions. He presents as having strong family ties and expresses a desire and commitment to provide for and take care of his parents and children. It appears that his inability to find employment in the field for which he attended College has caused a great deal of upset and frustration for the subject. As a result, he stated that he felt committing such offence was the only way he could provide for his family. Presently he is employed as an assistant to a real estate agent and with his father’s home renovation company. He hopes to find more stable and lucrative employment in the near future. The subject stated that he is heavily relied upon by his parents, who are not well, his partner and their children. He expressed fear that any period of incarceration would negatively impact his ability to care for his family.

[21] Since December 2012, Mr. Johnson, who is an African Canadian, has been an active volunteer in the Reachout Program in Mississauga – a non-profit community-based organization addressing issues of conflicts and violence with youth in the community across the GTA. In an October 7, 2014 letter, the Program’s Executive Director stated that:

Teran Johnson has been volunteering with Reachout since December 2012. He has thrived exceptionally, both personally and professionally. Reachout provides a variety of programs and services that he eagerly volunteers for. He is an active volunteer, assists in event planning, and partakes in counselling sessions, weekly meetings, workshops, and forums. Below details Teran’s documented volunteer work activities at the Reachout Committee.

He attends our weekly Saturday workshop with others from the Mentors Committee where he talks to young people about their interaction with the law and making the right choices. He has been making a positive impact on these youth based on evaluations and changes that we see in our clients. He is on the committee for the 2015 Annual Walk for Peace which addresses youth violence across the GTA. The goal of the walk is to bring awareness and prevention to youth violence and to engage youth to be a part of the positive change.

He has been working tirelessly on our upcoming 2014-2015 Basketball program “WE ALL HAVE A DREAM” to get youth to give back to their community by teaching the younger ones and being engaged.

[22] The Court was informed by the offender that in his role as a volunteer with the Program he meets with one to ten youths at a time. These are teenagers from varying ethnic backgrounds. An aspect of the counselling involves the offender describing how he strayed from the path of being a law-abiding citizen having given in to the temptation of drug trafficking as an easy solution to personal problems. During the exercise of his allocution right provided by s. 726 of the Code, Mr. Johnson further described his volunteer work:

It’s just with troubled youths, juveniles and other children that’s been involved in criminal acts. We go there do activities, basketball, put on programs.

And sometimes we’ll have sessions where in front of the kids we’ll speak and let them know a little bit about what you’ve been through and how you’re able to relate with them.

Not to be discouraged. Like, if you’re going through something at this time there’s always a way out. There’s always a - - you don’t give up because - - we weren’t, we weren’t raised to be bad, right, at the end of the day. So there’s still goodness and a conscience in us and we have a responsibility in the community to uphold it and be of good behaviour. If we have younger siblings we are to be an example to them so that they can grow up a better way. It doesn’t matter about the way that you live, the house, where you’re living or the school you’re going to, keep positive company.

I told them that I felt like I had given up. I felt that I worked so hard throughout my life I got to where I wanted and just one stepping stone just made everything tumble and go downhill, and I should have just been more persistent, been more patient. And just basically, again, never give up. Just strive, believe in what you want to do and if you want to be positive continue and try to help the people under you and younger than you to see that you’re an example.

They do ask questions. They’re young so they don’t really have to but I would force call somebody out, particularly their name ask them if they have anything to add or if they want to share.

A lot of them have changed. A lot of them are currently working and not with the company that they worked before. They’ve come to me plenty of times and told me that what I’ve said to them impacted them and they’ve told the Counsellor, Ms. Thorpe.

I just want to say that I’m sorry to my parents for disappointing them. And most importantly, I disappointed myself. And I just want to come out of this and just do better just for myself, for my kids and for my family. I know now that what I did was wrong and like I said again, sir, you’re not going to see me here again.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Crown

[23] On behalf of the Crown, it was submitted that a sentence in the range of 15 months’ incarceration would be an appropriate sentence to satisfy the interests of general deterrence and denunciation.

[24] Mr. Weinstock reviewed what he submitted were aggravating circumstances including the nature of the drug trafficked, the commercial character of the crimes by a non-addict, the pattern of trafficking, and the offender’s preparedness and apparent ability to traffic in larger amounts of cocaine.

[25] Crown counsel recognized the presence of various mitigating circumstances including the lack of a prior criminal record, the pleas of guilt (albeit not at an early opportunity), the positive PSR, and the reality that Mr. Johnson has attained “significant insight into his actions”.

The Defence

[26] Mr. MacKay submitted that a conditional sentence of imprisonment ought to be imposed. It was advanced that, without minimizing the seriousness of the criminality in this case, a community-based disposition would acknowledge the absence of a risk to re-offend and, by its terms, the punishment characteristics of imprisonment.

[27] The defence emphasized the guilty plea, Mr. Johnson’s first-offender status, the collateral impact of conviction upon the offender’s ability to secure employment in the private investigation field, the presence of genuine remorse, and the offender’s voluntary contribution to the community through participation in the Reachout Program while on bail for over a two-year period.

ANALYSIS

[28] At the outset, the joint intention of the parties respecting the trafficking charges in Counts 2 and 3 in the indictment requires clarification.

[29] In R. v. Garcia and Silva, 1969 CanLII 450 (ON CA), [1970] 3 C.C.C. 124 (Ont. C.A.), the court recognized that the common law permitted a court to take into consideration on sentencing other similar or related charges to which an accused had not pleaded guilty where the defence consented and those charges were ones “to which the accused will plead guilty or otherwise be proved guilty and…the Crown commits itself not to proceed with those other charges”.

[30] Section 725(1) (b.1) of the Criminal Code provides:

(b.1) shall consider any outstanding charges against the offender; unless the court is of the opinion that a separate prosecution for one or more of the other offences is necessary in the public interest, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Attorney General and the offender consent,

(ii) the court has the jurisdiction to try each charge,

(iii) each charge has been described in open court,

(iv) the offender has agreed with the facts asserted in the description of each charge, and

(v) the offender has acknowledged having committed the offence described in each charge…

[31] In the present case, in compliance with the Code, the offender consented to the two additional trafficking crimes being taken into consideration on sentencing.

[32] Section 725(1) (b.1) of the Criminal Code is “to some extent…a codification of pre-existing common law principles, particularly those set out in R. v. Garcia, 1969 CanLII 450 (ON CA), [1970] 3 C.C.C. 124 (Ont. C.A.)”: R. v. Larche, 2006 SCC 56, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 762, at para. 17; R. v. Edwards (2001), 2001 CanLII 24105 (ON CA), 54 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), at para. 45; R. v. Polychronopoulos, [1993] O.J. No. 3936 (C.A.), at para. 1. That provision “expresses in a more structured way…the practice recognized by Garcia”: Larche, at para. 19.

[33] The approach now statutorily authorized by s. 725(1)(b.1) has been described in these terms in R. v. Stevens, [1994] M.J. No. 311 (C.A.), at para. 12:

The practice of accepting a guilty plea to one charge and staying others is one which is followed frequently. It often avoids unnecessary expense and is in the public interest as well as that of the accused. This is sometimes so even where the gravamen of the accused’s offence is not embodied in the single charge to which he has pleaded guilty Then, counsel can advise the court of the material facts which are agreed upon and they can be taken into consideration by the sentencing judge: see, e.g., R. v. Garcia and Silva (1969), 3 C.C.C. 124 (Ont. C.A.).

[34] In effect, s. 725(1)(b.1) “allows for the punishment or sentencing of an offender for untried offences”: R. v. Howlett, 2002 CanLII 45068 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3525 (C.A.), at para. 12; see also D.P.P. v. Anderson, [1978] 2 All E.R. 512 (H.L.), at p. 515; R. v. Batchelor (1952), 36 Cr. App. R. 64 (C.A.), at pp. 67-8.

[35] In R. v. Williams, 2010 ONSC 3904, at paras. 16 to 26, I observed that:

16 The offender was engaged in commercial drug-dealing for gain. He is not an addict and, therefore, undeserving of the understanding extended to one suffering from a disease, who trafficks to support such a habit: see R. v. Woolcock, [2002 O.J. No. 4927 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 5; R. v. Mandolino, [2001] O.J. No. 289 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 1; R. v. Belenky, 2010 ABCA 98 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 3: R. v. Lau (2004), 2004 ABCA 408, 193 C.C.C. (3d) 51 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 33; R. v. Nguyen, 2001 BCCA 624 (B.C. C.A.), at para. 7.

17 As a general rule, denunciation and general deterrence are the paramount sentencing principles in instances of commercial trafficking: R. v. Bui, [2004] O.J. No. 3452 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 2; Woolcock, at para. 17; Nguyen, at para. 14.

18 In R. v. Murdock (2003), 2003 CanLII 4306 (ON CA), 176 C.C.C. (3d) 232 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 39, Doherty J.A. observed that:

The harm to society, occasioned by the drug trade cannot be gainsayed.

Also see R. v. Aitkens, 2004 BCCA 411 (B.C. C.A.), at para. 7: “Drug trafficking has become a blight in our society”; R. v. Beaudry (2000), 2000 ABCA 243, 37 C.R. (5th) 1 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 158 and 165 per Russell J.A.: “The damage to the community from trafficking in cocaine is substantial, and extends well beyond the offender and his prospective customers … it contributes to a variety of other offences, with the potential for extremely serious health and economic consequences. Drug trafficking remains a serious problem in Canada.”

19 In sentencing, the courts have differentiated between criminality involving hard and soft drugs: R. v. Tuck, [2007] O.J. No. 2626 (Ont. C.A.), at para 2; R. v. Wellington (1999), 1999 CanLII 3054 (ON CA), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 470 (Ont. C.A.), at 476; R. v. Cunningham (1996), 1996 CanLII 1311 (ON CA), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 542 (Ont. C.A.), at 547 (approved, R. v. H. (C.N.), (2002), 2002 CanLII 7751 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 564 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 23 and 37).

20 In Woolcock, at para. 8, the court stated:

There is no dispute that crack cocaine is an extremely dangerous and insidious drug with potential to cause a great deal of harm to individuals and to society.

21 Similarly, in R. v. Johnson, [2010] B.C.J. No. 301 (B.C. C.A.), at para. 29, the court noted that the trial judge “correctly took into account the serious effect that cocaine has on fellow citizens and [the offender’s] role in spreading this ‘disease’.”

22 In Beaudry, at para. 84, Berger J.A., (Churumka J. (ad hoc) concurring), observed with respect to the sentencing judge’s reasons that:

She appreciated full well that trafficking in cocaine is socially destructive. She understood that the deleterious effects of cocaine trafficking should not be ignored.

23 In Woolcock, at para. 15, a case of possession of 6.3 grams of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the court stated:

The range of sentence for this type of offence appears to be 6 months to 2 years less a day (see R. v. Madeiros, [2001] O.J. No. 5664 (Ont. S.C.J.) and the decision in R. v. Radassao, 1994 CanLII 779 (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No. 1990 (Ont. C.A.)). However, many of the cases that fall at the higher end of this range involved either larger quantities of narcotics or offences committed while the accused was still on probation for a similar offence. Those circumstances do not exist here.

24 In respect of small quantities of cocaine, the following dispositions were brought to the attention of the court: R. v. Malcolm, [2000] O.J. No. 4309 (Ont. C.A. (6 months’ jail upheld for possession of .9 grams for the purpose of trafficking); Bui (18 months’ jail upheld for possession of 7 grams for the purpose of trafficking); R. v. Meggo, [1998] O.J. No. 2564 (Ont. C.A.) (18 months upheld for possession of 7 grams for the purpose of trafficking).

25 In R. v. Ly (1997), 1997 CanLII 2983 (ON CA), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 279 (Ont. C.A.), at 286 the court stated that conditional sentences “will be looked to only rarely in cases of drug trafficking”. Likewise, in R. v. Sawatsky, 2007 ABCA 353 (Alta. C.A.) at para. 4, the court stated: “We agree with the Crown that those who organize and manage “dial-a-dope” schemes to traffic in drugs, such as cocaine...should usually be sentenced to terms of actual incarceration.” At p. 155 of R. v. Brown (1997), 1997 CanLII 10869 (NL CA), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 147 (Nfld. C.A.), Marshall J.A. (Green J.A. concurring) observed that:

It is true that judicial reaction to cocaine trafficking has been stern, rarely failing to result in prison terms.

26 The crimes of which Mr. Williams has been found guilty are eligible for the imposition of a conditional sentence. Indeed, it is error to suggest otherwise: R. v. Kerr, 2001 CanLII 21142 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 5085 (C.A.), at para. 10-14; Johnson, at para. 29; Brown, at pp. 155-6.

[36] Some further comment on these observations may be helpful.

[37] The offender trafficked a total of 15.55 g. of powdered cocaine. In R. v. Speziale, 2011 ONCA 580 (C.A.), at para. 26, the Court described a comparable quantity of this drug (14.87 g.) as a “small amount of cocaine”. That case, however, did not involve multiple instances of trafficking.

[38] The parties here correctly agreed that the paramount sentencing principles in sentencing one who has peddled an illicit hard narcotic are general deterrence and denunciation.

[39] While the Court in Ly observed that a conditional sentence would “only rarely” be a fit disposition for drug trafficking, courts have subsequently avoided, more or less, employing the language of “rare”, “exceptional” or “extraordinary” to label the circumstances which might properly warrant a non-custodial disposition. That said, it might be safely observed that while there is no presumption against a conditional sentence of imprisonment, because of the gravity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of hard-drug traffickers, the application of conventional sentencing principles will make such sentences statistically less frequent. In this regard, the observation in R. v. Kerr, 2001 CanLII 21142 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 5085 (C.A.), at para. 13, is apposite:

This court has affirmed the principle that there is no presumption against conditional sentences for trafficking offenses in R. v. Wellington (1999), 1999 CanLII 3054 (ON CA), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 470, substituting a conditional sentence for a sentence of fifteen months’ incarceration for importing hashish. The court emphasized that the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender should govern, at p. 475:

This court has not changed its policy of significant sentences for importing drugs into Canada with the advent of conditional sentences. However, where the sentencing judge determines that the appropriate duration of sentence in all the circumstances is less than two years, then the propriety of a conditional sentence to be served in the community instead of in custody must be considered in the usual manner. Therefore, although statistically conditional sentences will be less frequent in certain types of cases including drug trafficking and importing, the approach which a sentencing court is to take when considering imposing a conditional sentence in any particular case is the same for all offenses. The court is not to begin with a rule that the circumstances of the case itself must be rare or unusual. Rather, each case must be approached on the basis that it will be considered on its particular facts taking into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, as well as the personal circumstances of the offender. [Emphasis added by the Court in Kerr).

[40] Trafficking in cocaine, a highly addictive narcotic, has been described as an “extremely serious” crime (R. v. Lucia, 2010 ONCA 533, at para. 10) and as a “very serious offence” (Speziale, at para. 23). The narcotic is capable of causing “extraordinary damage” (R. v. Niemi, 2012 ONCA 133, at para. 3) and participation in cocaine distribution has been described as “both a violent and serious offence”: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 104. The parties agreed that trafficking in crack cocaine, a more potent and addictive drug, is generally treated as a more serious crime than peddling powdered cocaine. There has been some judicial recognition of this: see, for example, R. v. Phillips, 2012 ONSC 3402, at para 19; R. v. Imoro, 2011 ONSC 1445, at para. 45.

[41] Mr. MacKay submitted a number of authorities to the court in which conditional sentences were imposed for trafficking or related offences involving hard drugs: R. v. Burnett, 2013 ONSC 5536; R. v. Williamson, 2013 ONCJ 55; R. v. Phillips, 2012 ONCJ 3402; R. v. Chiriac, 2011 ONCJ 324; R. v. Imoro, 2011 ONSC 1445; R. v. Otchere-Badu, 2010 ONSC 5271; R. v. Kerr, 2001 CanLII 21142 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 5085 (C.A.); R. v. Marracco, [1999] O.J. No. 5157 (SCJ).

[42] In the individualistic sentencing process, the court takes account of mitigating factors commonly encountered such as a guilty plea, appearance as a first offender, the impact of incarceration on the offender’s young children, collateral loss of employment and reputation, and similar considerations. On occasion, a sentencing court must balance exceptional mitigating circumstances, circumstances out of the ordinary, also described as “mitigating factors so significant as to take the case below the otherwise appropriate range”: Hamilton, at para. 111. While there is no closed list of such factors, our jurisprudence has, over time, recognized such features including the commission of crime established to have been driven by addiction (R. v. Lazo, 2012 ONCA 389, at paras. 2-4, 7-8), meaningful assistance to the authorities (Hamilton, at para. 149), extreme youth, or circumstances of duress (R. v. Valentini et al. (1999), 1999 CanLII 1885 (ON CA), 132 C.C.C. (3d) 262 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 302-3).

[43] The prosecution had the option of charging the offender in a single count with trafficking cocaine in the time period of September 27 to October 24, 2012. In considering that the court now has four trafficking transactions under consideration, there is some merit in treating the offences as interrelated, and part of a continuous course of conduct involving one customer in a 28-day period, somewhat like the treatment of “spree” offences as that term is used on occasion: R. v. Kozussek, 2013 MBCA 52, at paras.8-9. Be that as it may, “when dealing with an offender who commits multiple offences over a short period of time, a delicate balancing act is required so that, while maintaining the essential principle of proportionality, the accused does not get a “free ride”: R. v. Lagimodiere (S.M.E.), 2008 M.J. No. 137 (C.A.), at para. 26.

[44] The aggravating factors of the offender’s criminality are manifestly apparent including:

(1) the nature of the illicit substance trafficked

(2) the commercial character of the trafficking – not conduct linked to the disease of addiction

(3) the planned and deliberate pattern of trafficking activity – not a “one off” instance

(4) the offender’s willingness to traffic in greater quantities.

[45] In the balance, in mitigation, these factors warrant consideration:

(1) Mr. Johnson is a first offender without a prior criminal record

(2) the offender pleaded guilty which I am satisfied evidences genuine contrition and a sparing of court time and resources

(3) at the point of commission of the offences, the offender was a 26-year-old who had lost his employment, for reasons carrying an element of unfairness, leading him to resort to drug trafficking to deal with pressing financial circumstances – there is no evidence of this offender reaping a lavish lifestyle from his resort to crime

(4) the offender is gainfully employed and has a supportive family

(5) Mr. Johnson financially supports two young children

(6) during the period in excess of two years of judicial interim release in which the offender has resided with his parents under a requirement to be amenable to the rules of their household, he has volunteered with the Reachout Program including explaining to youth the error of his decision to turn to drug trafficking.

[46] Mr. Johnson was apprehended after about one month of street-level dealing of powdered cocaine to an undercover officer. Crown counsel described the offender’s conduct as “a relatively small enterprise”. While it is perhaps naïve to think that this was the offender’s only customer, there is no surveillance or other evidence before the court to suggest the precise scope of the offender’s trafficking operation.

[47] The seriousness of the offences before the court, and the objective of general deterrence in particular, require the imposition of a custodial disposition of some duration. What impacts most significantly in reducing the period of incarceration below that ordinarily warranted by the circumstances here, is the extensive volunteer work of the offender demonstrating to at-risk and troubled youth the moral and legal wrongness of involvement in drug trafficking.

[48] Mr. Mackay’s alternative position was for a blended sentence – a finite period of incarceration in the intermittent range followed by a lengthier conditional sentence. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Weinstock, as I understand it, while not necessarily agreeing to such a disposition, nevertheless recognized its availability in the circumstances.

[49] In my view, this is one of those cases, unusual in the drug trafficking context, where, to adopt the language of Fish J. in R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 674, at para. 53, “intermittent and conditional sentences can be effectively combined to take advantage of their complimentary purposes”.

[50] In the result, with credit for 3 days of pre-sentence custody, Mr. Johnson is sentenced on count #1 to 90 days’ incarceration to be served on an intermittent basis – today for processing and thereafter on consecutive weekends (Friday 6:30 p.m. to Monday 6:00 a.m.) commencing Friday, January 9, 2015.

[51] On count #4, the offender is sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months to be served on a conditional basis upon the mandatory terms in s.742.3(1) of the Code and the following optional conditions:

(1) For the first 10 months of the sentence, remain within your residence daily subject only to these exceptions and travel directly related thereto:

(a) service of the intermittent sentence of custody

(b) scheduled meetings with the conditional sentence order (supervisor)

(c) employment on a schedule reported in advance to the supervisor

(d) child access on a schedule reported in advance to the supervisor

(e) medical appointments for yourself, your parents or children reported in advance to the supervisor

(f) the performance of 100 hours of community service to be completed on or before February 15, 2016, with a recommendation by the court that the placement be with the Reachout Program

(g) for one (1) four-hour period per week, arranged in advance with the supervisor, shopping for necessities and other items

(h) such further and other exceptions as may be pre-approved in writing by the supervisor.

(2) For the remaining 8 months of the sentence, obey a residential curfew (own place of residence) of midnight to 5:30 a.m. subject to such exceptions only as may be preapproved by the supervisor.

(3) Throughout the sentence, abstain from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription.

(4) Prepare two (2) signed progress reports relating to service of the sentence, employment and such other matters as directed by the supervisor to be forwarded by September 1, 2015 and February 1, 2016, respectively, addressed to:

The Honourable Justice S.C. Hill

A. Grenville & William Davis Courthouse

Superior Court of Justice

7755 Hurontario Street, Suite 100,

Brampton, Ontario,

L6W 4T6

[52] Pursuant to s.732(3) of the Code, the court orders that with the imposition of 18 months’ imprisonment to be served conditionally, the intermittent sentence shall be served as above directed and not on consecutive days.

[53] In addition, there will be a weapons prohibition order for 10 years pursuant to s.109(2)(a) of the Code and for life pursuant to s.109(2)(b) of the Code. On consent, the court has signed forfeiture and DNA orders.

[54] Count #s 2 and 3 in the indictment are stayed at the direction of the Crown. Pursuant to s.725(2) of the Code, the indictment has been endorsed to state that no further proceedings may be taken respecting these charges.

[55] It is further ordered that the Superior Court of Justice Trial Coordinator shall forward a copy of these Reasons for Sentence, the Pre-Sentence Report and exhibits to the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to ensure that corrections and probation staff have access to these materials.

HILL J.

DATE: January 7, 2015

CITATION: R. v. Johnson, 2015 ONSC 80

COURT FILE: CRIMJ(F) 687/13

DATE: 2015 01 07

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. TERAN JOHNSON

BEFORE: HILL J.

COUNSEL: S. Weinstock, for the Crown

T. MacKay, for the Defence

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

HILL J.

DATE: January 7, 2015