Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Oshawa Court File No.: CR-15-13823 Date: 2018-03-06
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
– and –
Keenan Corner Defendant
Counsel: K. Saliwonchyk and L. Crawford, for the Crown S. DiGiuseppe and K. Heath, for the Defendant
Heard: January 15-17, 2018
Reasons for Sentence
McKelvey J.:
Introduction
[1] In the late afternoon on February 19, 2014 a telephone call was received by a 911 operator and the accused, Keenan Corner, reported that his friend Shabir Niazi had been shot. When police attended on the scene Mr. Corner reported that he was in his family’s garage with Mr. Niazi when three Mediterranean males entered the garage and shot Mr. Niazi. The forensic pathologist confirmed at trial that Mr. Niazi was shot either five or six times in the upper body. There were, in addition, three shots to the head.
[2] Subsequent police investigation revealed that Mr. Corner’s report of three males entering the garage and being responsible for the shooting was fabricated. At trial Mr. Corner admitted that he was the shooter but asserted that he was acting in self defence. In his evidence at trial he stated that Mr. Niazi aimed a gun at him which he was able to take from Mr. Niazi. Mr. Corner alleged that Mr. Niazi subsequently picked up a baseball bat. He then fired two warning shots which were followed by two volleys of shots in Mr. Niazi’s direction as Mr. Niazi was swinging the bat towards him.
[3] At the conclusion of trial a jury found Mr. Corner guilty of second degree murder.
[4] In light of that verdict, Mr. Corner faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The only major issue left for me to decide is the period that he must serve before he is eligible to apply for parole. The range as per s. 745 of the Code is between 10 and 25 years. In accordance with section 745.2 of the Criminal Code, the jury was canvassed for their recommendation on parole ineligibility. Two jurors made no recommendation; one juror recommended 20 years; nine jurors recommended 25 years.
[5] In a previous ruling with respect to disputed facts for the purposes of sentence I have concluded that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no assault by Mr. Niazi on Mr. Corner prior to the shooting.
[6] Given that Mr. Niazi is no longer alive and cannot give any information as to what occurred and in light of the fact that I found Mr. Corner not to be a credible witness, I concluded in my earlier ruling that we are left with nothing but speculation as to what might have been the trigger for this deadly shooting.
Position of the Parties
[7] The Crown takes the position that the nature and circumstances of this offence are particularly aggravating. They refer to the fact that the murder was carried out with an illegal handgun and that Mr. Niazi was not a threat to Mr. Corner when the shooting occurred. The Crown also refers to the number of times Mr. Niazi was shot and the fact that three of the gunshot wounds were to Mr. Niazi’s head. The Crown further refers to Mr. Corner’s post-offence conduct. In the circumstances, the Crown seeks a period of parole ineligibility of 16 years.
[8] The defence takes the position that the appropriate range for parole ineligibility is 10 to 12 years. The defence suggests that there are a number of mitigating factors and that the appropriate period for parole ineligibility should be at the minimum of 10 years.
[9] In addition to the parole eligibility issue, the Crown is seeking three ancillary orders for Mr. Corner as follows:
(a) A prohibition for life under section 109(1) of the Criminal Code from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance;
(b) An order in form 5.03 under section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code to provide a DNA sample in relation to the conviction for murder, which is a primary designated offence;
(c) An Order under section 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting communication, directly or indirectly, during the custodial period of his sentence with Kenneth Whiddifield, Timothy O’Sullivan, Asim Ebrahimi, and any member of Shabir Niazi’s family including, aunts, uncles and cousins.
[10] The defence took no issue with respect to these ancillary orders.
[11] Section 745(c) of the Criminal Code provides that on conviction for second degree murder the offender must be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for a fixed period ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 25 years. In R. v. Shropshire, 1995 47 (SCC), [1995] SCJ No. 52, the Supreme Court noted that the objective of section 744 is to give the trial judge a limited discretion in sentencing to reflect the fact that within second degree murder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability. The Supreme Court also concluded that it would be incorrect to start from a proposition that the sentence must be the statutory minimum unless there are unusual circumstances.
[12] Section 745.4 of the Criminal Code sets out the factors which are to be considered in determining the parole ineligibility period. They are as follows:
(a) The character of the offender;
(b) The nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission; and
(c) The jury’s recommendations, if any, made pursuant to section 745.2.
[13] Also relevant are the general sentencing objectives, principles and applicable factors as described in Part XXII of the Criminal Code. This is because a period of parole ineligibility is part of the “punishment” imposed upon conviction. It is also a “sentence” within section 673 of the Criminal Code. See R. v. E.B., [2006] OJ No. 2752 at paras. 67 and 72. As noted at para. 73 of the E.B. decision, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions with one or more statutory objectives. Those objectives include, but are not limited to, denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, assistance in rehabilitation, promotion of responsibility among offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and to the community at large.
[14] In a case like this, denunciation and both general and specific deterrence are important factors to consider. Also significant is the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgment of the harm done to both the deceased and the community.
Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding It
[15] In an agreed statement of fact filed as an exhibit at trial, the parties agreed that at the time of Mr. Niazi’s death, Keenan Corner and Shabir Niazi were trafficking marijuana together under a joint enterprise. They had been trafficking marijuana together since 2011. It was also agreed that Mr. Corner had been in regular, though not continuous or exclusive, possession of the Glock handgun in the four to six weeks prior to the shooting. At times the firearm was kept in his bedroom at his residence. It is therefore apparent that both Mr. Niazi and Mr. Corner had been engaged in the illegal trafficking of marijuana for several years prior to Mr. Niazi’s death. It is also apparent that the Glock handgun used in the shooting had been in Mr. Corner’s possession from time to time in the four to six weeks prior to the shooting.
[16] On the day of the shooting the evidence at trial indicates that Mr. Corner was at his home. He was visited by a number of friends including Mr. Niazi. Another friend who visited at the home was Matthew Barras. Mr. Barras testified that he, as well as Mr. Niazi and Mr. Corner, were in the garage just prior to the shooting. Mr. Niazi asked Mr. Barras to leave the garage because he and Mr. Corner wanted to talk about something. Although Mr. Barras in his evidence was somewhat vague as to what he wanted to talk to Mr. Corner about it would appear that the subject of the proposed discussion related to financial issues about Mr. Corner’s ability to pay money that was required for the marijuana business.
[17] While in the garage after Mr. Barras left, Mr. Corner shot Mr. Niazi either eight or nine times. The forensic pathologist was not able to say whether one of the wounds to Mr. Niazi’s right hand was a gunshot wound on its own or part of another one.
[18] Immediately after the shooting Mr. Corner took a series of steps to cover up his involvement in the offence. He assembled everything he could remember in relation to the murder weapon and hid it in a nearby park. He also disposed of some of his clothing. When he returned from the park he called 911 to report a shooting. He told the police as well as his friends and members of the Niazi family that three Mediterranean men had come into the garage and had shot Mr. Niazi. He also reported that he had been pistol whipped when he tried to intervene.
[19] Subsequently, Mr. Corner went to a payphone and called Crime Stoppers. The purpose of his call to Crime Stoppers was to try and divert attention away from himself in the police investigation.
[20] Prior to trial, Mr. Corner acknowledged that he was in fact responsible for shooting Mr. Niazi and argued that the shooting was in self defence.
Victim Impact Statements
[21] Victim impact statements were provided by members of Mr. Niazi’s family. The defence took exception to some of the content of these statements on the following basis:
In some of the statements, the family members comment on the severity of sentence which should be imposed.
In some of the statements, they refer to the facts of the offence.
In some of the statements there are criticisms made about the offender.
In some of the statements there are expressions of gratitude by the family towards the police, Crown and the Court.
[22] The Crown agreed that the statements identified by the defence in the victim impact statements and which fall under the four headings described above should not properly be relied upon for purposes of sentence. I agree. Section 722(1) describes the scope of a victim impact statement, which is to describe the “physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss suffered by the victim as the result of the commission of the offence and the impact of the offence on the victim”. I have therefore not given any weight to the comments identified by the defence and which fall under the four categories described above.
[23] The victim impact statements do, however, describe the very severe impact that Shabir Niazi’s death has had on the family. Shabir Niazi’s mother perhaps captures the loss to the family best when she states, “I only have my memories with him. I can’t visit him or talk to him. Our family has been torn apart. I have lost all the joy in my life and the world seems dark to me”. In reviewing the comments of the family about the death of Mr. Niazi, I am reminded of the the comments of Justice Boswell who commented on the loss of a young man in R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654 where he states, “The loss to his family is immeasurable. For those fortunate enough not to know the nature of their acute misery, no explanation is possible.”
The Character of Mr. Corner
[24] Mr. Corner is currently 26 years old. At the time of the offence he was 22. While he is relatively young, Mr. Corner has a criminal record. His youth record includes a conviction in March, 2008 for robbery with violence. In December 2008, he was convicted for mischief under $5000, failing to comply with the conditions of an undertaking, failing to comply with a disposition under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and possession of a Schedule 2 substance for purposes of trafficking. In May of 2009 he was convicted of theft under $5000. As an adult he was convicted in October, 2009 of possession of a Schedule 2 substance for purposes of trafficking and failing to comply with a disposition under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In October 2011 he was convicted of failing to comply with the conditions of an undertaking and possession of a Schedule 2 substance for purposes of trafficking. In January of 2013 he was convicted of failing to appear.
[25] In addition to these convictions, it is also clear as referenced previously that Mr. Corner since 2011 has led a life of criminality by engaging in the trafficking of marijuana. Previous encounters with the criminal justice system have failed in their attempts at rehabilitation.
[26] I have the benefit of both a pre-sentence and a Gladue Report. Both these reports highlight a history of substance abuse. In the pre-sentence report it indicates that Mr. Corner initially started to use illicit drugs at age 14, which was marijuana. He has also used magic mushrooms and ecstasy became a “regular thing” around the time of this offence. In the pre-sentence report it notes that Mr. Corner acknowledges that at times he wishes he never became involved with drugs. This was a sentiment also expressed in his evidence at trial. He told the author of the pre-sentence report that drug use has impacted every area of his life. Having said that there is evidence that Mr. Corner has been offered support to deal with his drug issues which were rejected. For example, in the pre-sentence report his father reported that he attempted to get his son help but he rejected this offer.
[27] I found the comments of the father to be quite frank and helpful to me in assessing Mr. Corner’s character. The father’s comments both to the pre-sentence and Gladue authors as well as his written statement to the Court appeared to be very objective and deserving of serious consideration.
[28] In the pre-sentence report the father reported that his son tended to be “violently angry” in the last year leading up to this offence. He suggested that drug use was suspected as the subject damaged several things in the home and had no patience with his younger sisters at the time. Mr. Corner expressed the view that his son “seemed like a desensitized person from a certain stage of his life”.
[29] At the time of the initial interview with the author of the pre-sentence report, Mr. Corner was asked specifically about whether he had endured any form of abuse, including sexual abuse which he denied. Later, on December 12, 2017, Mr. Corner called the author of the pre-sentence report to inform that he recalled being sexually abused by a neighbour between the ages of “3 and 5”. This allegation has also been referenced in the Gladue Report. The allegation was initially viewed with some skepticism by the father and mother. However, in her letter of support with respect to sentencing, the mother states that it wasn’t until a couple of months ago that Keenan Corner wrote to her and told her about the molestation. She states that she has thought about it for a while and she remembers him mentioning something back then that she didn’t clue into. While this issue is not clear cut one way or the other, I am prepared to accept the possibility that there was some sexual abuse at an early age of Mr. Corner.
[30] In his evidence at trial and in his statement to this Court as part of the sentencing submissions, Mr. Corner expressed remorse about Mr. Niazi’s death. In his statement to the Court on sentencing, Mr. Corner stated that he is still haunted by the death of Mr. Niazi and is sorry that he lied to the Niazi family about his involvement. He is also sorry that he lied to police and to the community. It is difficult to assess the degree of remorse felt by Mr. Corner. As noted by the Crown in his submissions, Mr. Corner’s expressions of remorse are often tied to getting involved in trafficking in drugs, buying a gun and ending up being charged with a very serious offence. As noted in the pre-sentence report, Mr. Corner’s father has indicated it is difficult to ascertain his son’s level of remorse because he had not spoken to him lately and “he tried to lie to cover it up”. In the pre-sentence report the author expresses the view, “based on collateral contacts and contact with the subject it has been difficult to ascertain the level of remorse; given his current situation”.
[31] It must be acknowledged, however that there is some support for Mr. Corner’s expressions of remorse being genuine. There is a detailed letter from Robert Maguire who was an inmate with Mr. Corner during his pre-trial custody. Mr. Maguire notes that he has a long criminal record of a non-violent nature. He says that he spent close to five months in the same unit as Mr. Corner and had a lot of contact with him. In his letter he states that Mr. Corner has changed from being “the brash youth to being a serious young man recognizing the consequences of his actions”. He expresses the opinion that Mr. Corner has had a lot of time to reflect on the events and he is convinced that his expressions of remorse are honest. There is, therefore, some evidence to support Mr. Corner’s more recent expressions of remorse.
[32] I do accept that Mr. Corner has some potential for rehabilitation. While he does have a lengthy history of criminality, his conviction for second degree murder represents a marked departure for him based on his previous criminal record and the evidence adduced during the trial. I have also placed some weight on the comments of Mr. Maguire that when Mr. Corner has been inside the correctional centre, he has passed up opportunities to get high and has avoided confrontations with other people. He seems interested in rehabilitation programs. At the time of the offence he was only 22 years old and is still very young today at age 26.
[33] I also place some weight on the letter of support his father has written where he states, “I feel strongly that apart from this part of his life that there is a decent person within him if he chooses to take that path with the right help”.
[34] I have concluded that while Mr. Corner’s record does not demonstrate a positive response to the offers of rehabilitation in the past, there is at least a potential for rehabilitation for Mr. Corner if, as his father states, he chooses to follow that path.
The Gladue Considerations
[35] The Gladue Report confirms that Mr. Corner is a status Indian. This heritage comes from his mother. His father does not have any aboriginal heritage. Mr. Corner’s mother did not have a lot of involvement with her culture. In the Gladue Report the mother reported that while growing up she was never taught or learned about her culture. There is no history of any family members having attended residential school.
[36] Up to this point, Keenan Corner does not appear to have had much involvement with his aboriginal culture.
[37] As noted in the Gladue Report, Mr. Corner’s experience with his aboriginal identity is not uncommon. The report states,
Cultural identity is important; without it people can feel lost or drift with no real attachment to a group or to a place. Thus, the aspect of providing and making connections to aboriginal place and space is important.
[38] Mr. Corner has expressed a desire to learn more about his culture and reported to the author of the Gladue Report that he has been attending cultural programming at the correctional facility.
[39] With respect to the issue of Mr. Corner’s aboriginal status, I find the comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Fraser, 2016 ONCA 745, to be of assistance. In that decision the court reaffirms the important principles from the Supreme Court of Canada decisions. This includes the principle that an aboriginal offender does not bear the burden of establishing a direct causal link between the systemic and background factors and the commission of the offence. It goes on to note that in some cases the evidence may suggest that an offender’s aboriginal background played a role in shaping the offender’s path to committing the offence. In this case, however, I do not see a strong connection in that regard. Nevertheless, the comments in the Gladue Report about the importance of cultural identity is relevant and needs to be taken into account. Mr. Corner’s aboriginal background, however, is only one factor which must be considered. As noted in R. v. Gladue, 1999 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688:
Generally, the more violent and serious the offence, the more likely as a practical reality that the terms of imprisonment for aboriginals and non-aboriginals will be close to each other or the same, even taking into account their different concepts of sentencing.
The Recommendation of the Jury
[40] While two jurors made no recommendation, one juror recommended a period of parole ineligibility of 20 years and the nine others made a recommendation of 25 years before eligibility. The case law establishes that a jury recommendation is just that, a recommendation. Jurors are not instructed on the principles of sentencing and their recommendations need not be “slavishly” followed. See R. v. Chalmers, 2009 ONCA 268.
[41] In the present case the jury recommendations clearly fall outside any realistic range for this offence. Nevertheless the recommendations are significant in my view because they do reflect that the overwhelming majority of jurors found the moral culpability of Mr. Corner to be extremely high. It also reflects their views about the disturbing circumstances of the offence. It is clear that substantially all of the jurors were of the view that the period of parole eligibility should be at the high end of the range.
[42] Having said that, it is the responsibility of this court to carefully review all of the relevant factors in order to determine what the appropriate sentence is. The jury recommendation is only one of a number of factors that needs to be considered, but I view it as an important factor in this case.
Analysis
[43] Section 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code requires that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. The defence argues that the appropriate range for a sentence in a case like this should be 10 to 12 years of parole ineligibility.
[44] In the Nova Scotia case of R. v. Gabriel, 2017 NSSC 90, the court refers to a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision which provides some guidance on ranges. The court states as follows,
In R. v. Hawkins, the Court of Appeal accepted the categorization of parole eligibility into three parts. The first category of 10-15 years is reserved for those offenders for whom the prospects of rehabilitation appear to be good and little would be served by extending the period of parole ineligibility other than to further the sentencing objectives of denunciation and retribution. The third category of 20-25 years is reserved for the worst offenders who commit the worst offences. The category between 15-20 years is for those who do not fall into either of the other two.
It does not appear that this type of categorization has yet been adopted in Ontario. Nevertheless, I found these comments to be helpful in reviewing Ontario caselaw.
[45] In R. v. McKnight, 1999 3717 (ON CA), [1999] OJ No. 1321, the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced a period of parole ineligibility and stated, “No two cases are the same but similar cases from this province of brutal second-degree murders of an unarmed wife or girlfriend suggest a range of 12 to 15 years”. In R. v. Hall, 2011 ONSC 7281, the accused poured gasoline and set the victim on fire. In considering the range of sentences, Justice Archibald adopted the range of 12 to 15 years and referenced the decision in McKnight. This leads me to conclude that the appropriate range for a case like this would be up to 15 years of parole ineligibility. The Crown’s position of 16 years of parole ineligibility seems high, but requires some consideration based on the aggravating and mitigating factors.
[46] There are a number of serious aggravating factors which push Mr. Corner’s parole ineligibility towards the high end of the range. This includes the following,
The recommendations of the jurors.
This was a crime of extreme violence. Mr. Niazi was shot either eight or nine times. Three of the shots were to the victim’s head. The number of bullet wounds and the fact that there were three gunshot wounds to the head clearly demonstrate Mr. Corner’s intention to kill Mr. Niazi. Mr. Corner is solely responsible for this shooting.
The use of an illegal Glock handgun is a further aggravating factor. In R. v. Paredes, 2014 ONCA 910, the Ontario Court of Appeal commented as follows:
This court and others have repeatedly identified gun violence, particularly in Toronto, as a pressing and very serious problem. The need to denounce and deter the appellant’s conduct, justified some extension of the period of parole ineligibility.
While the above reference targets gun violence in Toronto, I would note that Ajax where this event occurred is part of the Greater Toronto Area and I view the possession and use of an illegal hand gun to be a significant aggravating factor.
I have previously found that the Crown has satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no assault by Mr. Niazi prior to the shooting.
Mr. Corner’s post-offence conduct is a serious aggravating factor. There was no attempt to call medical assistance immediately after the shooting. Instead, Mr. Corner took steps to hide his involvement in the killing. He lied to police, his friends and the deceased’s family. He also called Crime Stoppers in an attempt to divert the police investigation away from him.
Mr. Corner does have a criminal record and was engaged in a lifestyle of criminality. As noted previously, however, Mr. Corner’s involvement in this killing is a marked departure from anything reflected in his prior criminal record or his criminal lifestyle.
The result of this shooting was the death of Shabir Niazi. His family have suffered a loss which is hard to describe but which is reflected in the victim impact statements submitted to this Court. A mother’s life has been left shattered.
[47] I have also considered the following mitigating factors:
Mr. Corner has an aboriginal heritage which requires consideration in accordance with the principles described above.
Mr. Corner has demonstrated some level of remorse.
There is potential for rehabilitation. Mr. Corner has expressed an interest in turning his life around. This is reflected in the Gladue Report where it states that Mr. Corner hopes to participate in programs while incarcerated and has expressed a desire to get help and a desire to give back to others. He is reported to have told the author of the Gladue Report that he wants the court to help him change and to take a new direction in his life so that if he gets paroled he can assist other people and find a way to do good things for them to the point that the good outweighs the hurt that he has done to others. These views are also reflected in the comments of Mr. Maguire and in Mr. Corner’s comments to the court during sentencing submissions.
It is apparent that if Mr. Corner is paroled at some point, he will have family support as well as the support of other members of the community like Mr. Maguire.
[48] As Mr. Corner pleaded not guilty and had a trial he cannot benefit from the significant mitigation that flows from a plea of guilty. However, I do recognize that prior to the commencement of trial, he admitted to being responsible for the shooting. This is deserving of some limited recognition as a mitigating factor.
[49] A final issue raised by the defendant in mitigation is the fact that he has been incarcerated since his arrest at the Central East Correctional facility. This was a factor considered by Justice Boswell in R. v. Hong, supra. In dealing with the issue of parole eligibility for a defendant convicted of second degree murder, Justice Boswell states at para. 60,
During Mr. Hong’s time at CECC, he has been subjected to lockdowns for 266 days. The circumstances associated with pre-trial detention have long been accepted as a factor having the potential to mitigate sentence. I consider the number of lockdown days as a mitigating factor in Mr. Hong’s sentence. I do not suggest that it has strongly influenced me in terms of the ultimate sentence, but it is certainly one factor to consider, amongst others, in arriving at a fit and just sentence for Mr. Hong. He is not entitled to enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, obviously, given his mandatory life sentence. The only meaningful way this factor can be accounted for is in relation to the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.
[50] In the present case I do not have any evidence regarding the number of lockdown days at Central East Correctional Centre during Mr. Corner’s custody. I am aware, however, that the correctional centre was subject to some labour unrest which was especially noticeable during the course of pre-trial motions. During this time Mr. Corner was delivered to the courthouse late on numerous occasions. I have no reason to doubt the defence submission that there were a large number of days where the facility was on lockdown. I agree with Justice Boswell that Mr. Corner is not entitled to enhanced credit for pre-trial custody and that the only meaningful way this factor can be accounted for is in relation to the appropriate period of parole eligibility. Like Justice Boswell I have considered this as a mitigating factor in Mr. Corner’s sentence but do not suggest that it has strongly influenced me in considering what is a fit and just sentence for Mr. Corner.
Conclusion
[51] Mr. Corner would you please stand. I have considered your character, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the recommendation of the jury. I have reviewed and considered the case law provided by Crown and defence counsel in their respective books of authorities. The aggravating features to which I have referred reflect the seriousness of your offence and a high degree of responsibility and moral culpability. I have also considered the mitigating factors. Taking into account all of the factors, I sentence you to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 14 years.
[52] Further, I order that there be a prohibition for life under section 109(2) of the Criminal Code from your possessing, any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance.
[53] I further make an order in form 5.03 under section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code for you to provide a DNA sample in relation to the conviction for murder, which is a primary designated offence.
[54] I further make an order under section 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting communication by you, directly or indirectly, during the custodial period of your sentence with Kenneth Whiddifield, Timothy O’Sullivan, Asim Ebrahimi, and any member of Shabir Niazi’s family including, aunts, uncles and cousins.
[55] In accordance with the pre-sentence report it is my recommendation that in the case of future community supervision or while in custody Mr. Corner be offered addictions counselling and one to one psychological intervention. The psychological intervention should include counselling for a possible history of sexual abuse as outlined in the pre-sentence report. There is also information suggesting that Mr. Corner may suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder which should be considered in the context of any psychological intervention.
[56] In accordance with the Gladue Report I further recommend that Mr. Corner be offered the opportunity of participating in indigenous programs through the Native inmate liaison officer program and that he also be offered any available life skills program.
Justice M. McKelvey
Released: March 6, 2018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
KEENAN CORNER Defendant
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Justice M. McKelvey
Released: March 6, 2018