Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 17-50000346-0000 DATE: 20180713

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – RESHANE HAYLES-WILSON

Counsel: Elizabeth Nadeau and Marco Cuda, counsel for the Crown Stephen Bernstein and Paul Alexander, counsel for the Accused

HEARD: June 27, 2018

M.A. CODE J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

A. OVERVIEW

[1] The accused Reshane Hayles-Wilson was convicted after trial by jury, upon an Indictment alleging first degree murder, of the lesser included offence of second degree murder. The mandatory sentence for second degree murder is life imprisonment, with a discretion to impose a period of parole ineligibility between the minimum 10 years and the maximum 25 years, pursuant to ss. 745(c) and 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

[2] The statutory factors to consider, under s. 745.4 are: the character of the offender; the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission; and any recommendation of the jury. The 12 jurors in this case made the following recommendations: one made no recommendation; four recommended the minimum 10 years; two recommended 15 years; two recommended 18 years; and three recommended 20 years. In other words, a majority of seven recommended between 15 and 20 years while a minority of four recommended the minimum ten years.

[3] These are my Reasons concerning the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

B. FACTS RELATING TO THE OFFENCE

[4] The evidence heard at trial is summarized in detail in the Charge to the Jury. The final written Charge is a public document, as it was made an Exhibit at trial, and I adopt the detailed summary of the evidence found at pp. 99-163 for the purposes of sentencing.

[5] The basic facts of the case were not in dispute at trial. Mr. Hayles-Wilson was carrying a loaded handgun at a basketball tournament held in the North Kipling Community Centre on the evening of November 24, 2013. He drew his handgun and fired multiple shots at the deceased Neeko Mitchell from close range, causing Mr. Mitchell’s death. These events, just outside the front doors of the Centre, are captured on the Centre’s video surveillance cameras. The only issues at trial were the following two: did Neeko Mitchell utter a threat, when he and Mr. Hayles-Wilson met outside the front doors, thereby causing sudden “provocation”; if not, was the murder “planned and deliberate”. The jury’s verdict of second degree murder necessarily means both that the defence of “provocation” was rejected, in the sense that at least one of its four elements did not raise a reasonable doubt, and also that some element of “planning and deliberation” was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[6] The jury’s verdict does not resolve any of the factual issues about the offence beyond the above two basic propositions. As a result, it falls to the trial judge to make any further findings relevant to sentencing pursuant to s. 724(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. Any aggravating facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and any mitigating facts must be proved on a balance of probabilities, pursuant to s. 724(3).

[7] I am satisfied of the following aggravating facts concerning the offence beyond reasonable doubt:

• first, there was a plan to murder Mr. Mitchell and that plan was carried out by Mr. Hayles-Wilson. The evidence in this regard is summarized in the Charge to the Jury at pp. 26-35. Because events at the Centre unfolded quickly, there was insufficient time for “deliberation”, in the sense of taking “time to weigh the advantages and disadvantages” and being “slow in deciding”, as required in the law relating to “planning and deliberation”. See R. v. Monney, 2016 ONSC 1007 at paras. 96-101 per Clark J. citing R. v. Berry, 2017 ONCA 17 at para. 91;
• second, Mr. Hayles-Wilson fled from the scene of the murder with the assistance of Kashana Duncan and remained at large for the next ten months, hiding from the police with the assistance of various friends and associates. He also successfully disposed of the murder weapon;
• third, there were large numbers of people at the Centre on the night of the shooting, including children. In the immediate vicinity of the shooting outside the front doors, there were a number of adults and one of them (the accessory Kashana Duncan) was hit and wounded by one of the bullets aimed at Neeko Mitchell;
• fourth, there was some kind of grievance between Mr. Hayles-Wilson and his associates, on the one hand, and the deceased Neeko Mitchell on the other hand. This grievance provided the motive for the murder. The exact nature of the grievance was not proved at this trial but there was evidence that a leader of a neighbourhood criminal gang known as “Monstarz”, Jermaine Dunkley, was in close contact with Mr. Hayles-Wilson at the Centre that evening and was talking to him and to Kashana Duncan immediately prior to the shooting. In addition, Mr. Dunkley’s gang was heavily involved in drug trafficking and Neeko Mitchell also appears to have been involved in drug trafficking to some extent. Mr. Hayles-Wilson admits that he was a drug trafficker. Finally, Mr. Dunkley’s brother had been murdered a few months previously and both Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Hayles-Wilson were upset by this prior murder of a close friend and family member. Whether Neeko Mitchell had any connection to that prior murder, or was believed to be connected to the prior murder, is unclear on the evidence at this trial. As I stated, the exact nature of the motive was not proved at this trial but I am satisfied that some kind of grudge or grievance, related in some fashion to the above circumstances, explains why a plan was formed to murder Neeko Mitchell. That plan was then executed quickly by Mr. Hayles-Wilson;
• fifth, Mr. Hayles-Wilson had a prior association with Mr. Dunkley that was relatively close. That association continued after the murder was committed as Mr. Hayles-Wilson was assisted, while escaping and hiding, by Mr. Dunkley’s associates and there was some kind of plan, discussed in one of the wiretaps by Mr. Hayles-Wilson and Mr. Dunkley, to try to help Mr. Hayles-Wilson remain at large and to prevent his arrest;
• sixth, Neeko Mitchell was not armed on the night in question. There is no suggestion that he produced a weapon and there is no evidence he was in possession of a weapon that night. The events at the front door unfolded rapidly, within a few seconds, as Mr. Hayles-Wilson exited the Centre almost immediately after Mr. Mitchell, they briefly greeted each other, Mr. Hayles-Wilson turned and pulled out his gun, and he immediately shot Mr. Mitchell eight times at close range in the area of Mr. Mitchell’s vital organs, before fleeing with Ms. Duncan in her car.

[8] The Crown tendered seven powerful and poignant Victim Impact Statements from Neeko Mitchell’s family. It would not do these statements justice, to try to summarize them in these Reasons, but I wish to quote a few illustrative passages. Neeko Mitchell’s mother, Carol Ann Mitchell, stated the following:

There’s not a day that goes by that something or someone doesn’t remind me of my loss… Neeko was my youngest of three – my baby and very special to me in so many ways. Inside I’m empty. There’s this void that can’t filled, not even with time. Therefore Your Honour, I ask that you not only use a fair judgment in casting sentence but also take into consideration the many lives that this crime has negatively impacted.

Neeko Mitchell’s father, Patrick Giscombe, stated the following:

Words can’t express my feelings. Here was a young man in the prime of his life, who had just become a Father for the second time, a role he endorsed totally. For 5 years with the same company up to the time of his death, Neeko had been employed.

Since birth, Neeko suffered with sickle cell and he never let it stop him, through all his crisis he soldiered on. In taking care of Neeko since he was a baby, with a lot of help, Ours was a special relationship, many sleepless nights in York Finch Hospital, many disagreement, yes, but he was never disrespectful. My Son had a rough life because of his severe illness but his zest for life was overwhelming and you cut it short. This family is rock solid so his legacies, his memory will never die.

Neeko Mitchell’s oldest sister, Kareema Bartley, stated the following:

Neeko was brave and he definitely was a fighter. He adored his 2 children. This father’s day I had Neeko’s youngest daughter. Hearing her mention that she made a card for him and she would be visiting him hurt to the core. Hearing her tell my son that her daddy is in heaven brings levels of sadness that I would not wish on anyone. Seeing his daughters grow and miss out on the father’s input is unsettling. He was a great Father, He was a great brother and friend. His positive spirit is missed. His words of encouragement and his presence is missed, his laughter is missed and his smile is missed.

It is apparent that this family has suffered a tremendous loss as a result of the murder of Neeko Mitchell.

C. FACTS RELATING TO THE OFFENDER

[9] Mr. Hayles-Wilson was 23 years old at the time of the offence. He is now 27 years old. He has been in custody awaiting trial, and now awaiting sentencing, since his arrest in late September 2014, that is, for about three years and nine months. Some of this delay was “defence delay”, as explained in my Reasons on the unsuccessful s. 11(b) Motion where I concluded that the “net delay”, pursuant to the methodology in Jordan, was 29 months. See: R. v. Hayles-Wilson, 2018 ONSC 3104.

[10] Mr. Hayles-Wilson testified at trial and described his own background and antecedents. He was born in Toronto and raised by his parents in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood. His parents separated when he was about 12 years old. He initially lived with his mother in Vaughn, and then with his father in Scarborough where he graduated from West Hill Collegiate High School. He was a good basketball player in school by all accounts. After high school, he lived with an aunt in Mississauga and worked at short term construction and roofing jobs obtained through temporary agencies. He continued his education by attending the Toronto Arts and Film Academy and by taking two courses at George Brown College, all related to his interest in fashion design. He started his own line of clothing and produced some samples of the merchandise, but he did not actually sell any of his clothing commercially. He has no criminal record.

[11] During the year 2013, when the present offence occurred, he had no fixed address and no employment other than occasional painting and construction jobs. He had become a drug dealer, starting in late 2012, according to his evidence. He slept at the homes of various friends, family, and acquaintances. Since his conviction, he has continued to enjoy strong support from his family. A number of letters were filed on sentencing that describe his good character and his real potential at a time when he was young, his present remorse since committing the offence, and his family’s hope for his future.

[12] The Crown filed Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s institutional misconduct reports, relating to a number of incidents that occurred during his time in pre-trial custody (Exhibit 5). The incidents were all relatively minor. The defence filed Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s institutional “lockdown” records from the Toronto South Detention Centre where there have been labour relations and staffing difficulties in the last few years. The records show that Mr. Hayles-Wilson, and other inmates, were subject to 482 “lockdowns” of varying lengths (some for no more than a few hours), including 145 full day “lockdowns”. He has been in custody for 1395 days. In other words, about 1/3 of his time in custody has involved some kind of “lockdown” and about 1/10 of his time in custody has been on full day “lockdown”. There is some authority in Ontario to the effect that this form of “hard time” has a mitigating effect, in relation to parole eligibility. These cases hold that it is not a particularly “strong” factor, presumably because all pre-trial custody in murder cases is fully credited in relation to parole eligibility pursuant to s. 746(a), which is an exception to the normal rules in s. 719. See: R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654 at para. 60; R. v. Corner, 2018 ONSC 1529 at paras. 49-50.

[13] The final facts relating to the offender that I should note, for purposes of sentencing, are as follows: I was satisfied to the requisite degree from the evidence at trial that Mr. Hayles-Wilson was a close associate of Jermaine Dunkley, an admitted criminal gang leader of “Monstarz”; that Mr. Hayles-Wilson was assisted and supported during his ten month long flight from justice by a number of “Monstarz” gang associates; and that Mr. Hayles-Wilson and Mr. Dunkley devised a plan, and discussed it in one of the wiretaps, to prevent Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s arrest by the police.

D. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[14] The Crown submits that 20 to 22 years is the appropriate range for the parole ineligibility period in this case. The defence submits that 13 to 14 years is the appropriate range. This significant difference in their positions is due to their reliance on different case law and it is also due to the fact that the Crown stresses the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence, whereas the defence stresses the accused’s young age, lack of record, and rehabilitative potential. These different principles of sentencing, and different aspects of the case, tend to pull in different directions.

E. ANALYSIS

[15] The aggravating circumstances in this case, in my view, include the following:

• first, as noted above, I am satisfied that the murder in this case was “planned”. There is reasonable doubt as to the element of “deliberation” but not in relation to the element of “planning”. As a result, the case is “a near first degree murder”, to adopt the terminology used by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Berry, supra;
• second, the accused was carrying a loaded hidden handgun in a public place, with the obvious intention of using it when needed. As the Court of Appeal put it in R. v. Danvers (2005), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 at paras. 77-8 (Ont. C.A.):

In conclusion, I fully endorse the following comments made by the trial judge in sentencing the appellant:

It is my view that the circumstances of this murder and this offender bring into play the principles of deterrence, both general and, more especially individual, the principles of denunciation and the protection of society. Death by firearms in public places in Toronto plague this city and must be deterred, denounced and stopped. Only the imposition of exemplary sentences will serve to deter criminals from arming themselves with handguns. In particular, the use of handguns in public places cries out for lengthy increased periods of parole eligibility. Society must be protected from criminals armed with deadly handguns.

There is no question that our courts have to address the principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun related crimes in the strongest possible terms. The possession and use of illegal handguns in the Greater Toronto Area is a cause for major concern in the community and must be addressed. [Emphasis added].

In this regard, Toronto police statistics were filed by the Crown (Exhibit 4). They show that there have already been 199 shootings in Toronto in the first six months of this year, as of June 25, 2018, whereas in the entire 2017 year there were 170 shootings. In other words, the need to deter the use of firearms in Toronto is as great, if not greater, than it has ever been;

• third, the accused fired eight shots at Neeko Mitchell in a busy public place with other persons nearby. One of these persons, albeit an accessory involved to some degree in the murder plot, was hit and wounded by one of the bullets. The danger to the public was great, given the number of shots fired and given the relatively close presence of other members of the public;
• fourth, as noted above, the precise motive for the murder was not proved at this trial to be gang-related vengeance or protection of gang-related territory. However, Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s association to the “Monstarz” gang was proved, associates of the gang supported and assisted him during his ten month long flight from justice, and a leader of the gang attempted to assist him with a plan they had devised and discussed to prevent his arrest by the police. This conduct and these associations tend to infer a criminal character or criminal mind-set.

[16] On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances in this case include the following:

• first, Mr. Hayles-Wilson is relatively young. He was 23 years old at the time of the offence and his antecedents indicate that he had exhibited a number of pro-social tendencies in his youth;
• second, he has no criminal record. This is his first conviction for any criminal offence, in spite of some of his anti-social associations noted above;
• third, he enjoys the continued support of his family, who appear to be pro-social individuals, and he has engaged in one constructive program at the Toronto South Detention Centre while awaiting trial;
• fourth, he apologized to Neeko Mitchell’s family and asked for forgiveness, in his statement to the Court at the end of the sentencing hearing.

[17] The above four mitigating factors, viewed cumulatively, give some hope for Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s rehabilitation. It is too early to reach any final conclusion on this point, as some of the aggravating factors noted above point in the other direction. However, there is some present potential for his rehabilitation.

[18] I have reviewed the two books of authorities submitted by the parties, as well as some additional authorities, all dealing with brazen public shootings like the present one. In my view, the appropriate range of parole ineligibility in this case, that emerges from these authorities, is 14 to 16 years. The 12 year cases towards the bottom end of the statutory range are distinguishable, as being less serious, and the 18 to 22 year cases towards the top end of the statutory range are also distinguishable, as being more serious. Of course, none of the prior cases are a perfect analogy to the present case as some of the circumstances relating to the offence and/or some of the circumstances relating to the offender are invariably more or less serious. However, it is the mid-range 14 to 16 year cases that are closest to the present case. I will briefly summarize the above three groupings of authorities, all of which involved murders committed with firearms and murders committed to some degree in public places with other persons present or nearby.

[19] At the bottom end of the range are cases where a 12 year parole ineligibility period has been imposed. See: R. v. Maciel, 2007 ONCA 496; R. v. Paredes (2014), 2014 ONCA 910, 317 C.C.C. (3d) 415 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Lewis, 2012 ONSC 2488. All of these cases involved somewhat unusual circumstances that were less aggravating or more mitigating and that justified situating the case towards the bottom end of the range. In Lewis, the accused was not the principal who fired the shots, he was 20 years old, he had a criminal record but he had “prospects for rehabilitation”, the murder took place in a somewhat less public “vacant apartment”, and the jury unanimously recommended the minimum ten year parole ineligibility period. In Maciel, the Court of Appeal imposed the parole ineligibility period as a court of first instance, after reducing a first degree murder conviction to second degree murder on appeal. By this point in time, the accused had already served eight years of his sentence and there had been a “fundamental change”. He had been a 20 year old armed “drug dealer” with a prior record at the time of the offence. The murder took place at a drug-related meeting that was pre-arranged at a less public location where no witnesses would be present. The Court of Appeal was in a position to evaluate the accused, like the Parole Board, at a point where he had now made “real and continued progress for over eight years.” He had developed “significant work skills”, gained “personal insight into his prior behaviour”, found “spiritual comfort and support” from attending church, and was “helping and mentoring others” in prison. As a result, there was now “good reason for optimism”. Finally, in Paredes the shooting was in a very public place outside a bar on Yonge Street in Toronto, after a dispute with bouncers inside the bar. A completely innocent bystander was shot and killed when the accused fired his gun at the bouncers. However, the shooting appeared to be impulsive, the accused was licensed to own the gun, he was a 22 year old first offender, only one juror recommended more than the ten year minimum period of parole ineligibility, and the accused had “real rehabilitative potential,” given that the offence was “out of character”.

[20] It can be seen that all three of these 12 year parole ineligibility cases involved less serious offences and/or better situated offenders than in the present case.

[21] At the other end of the spectrum are a number of cases, relied on by the Crown, where parole ineligibility periods of 18 to 22 years have been imposed. See: R. v. Weese, 2016 ONCA 449; R. v. Chambers, 2018 ONSC 2070; R. v. Belic (2008), 76 W.C.B. (2d) 508 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Sarrazin, 2000 Carswell Ont 5078. All of these cases involved more serious offences and worse situated offenders than in the case at bar. In Weese, the accused fired at least 14 shots outside a bar, with a semi-automatic handgun, after an altercation inside the bar. An innocent bystander was killed and six others were wounded. The 26 year old accused had a lengthy criminal record for violence, including a prior shooting, and the trial judge found that there was “no possibility of rehabilitation”. The parole ineligibility period was set at 22 years. In Chambers, the accused shot and killed three persons at a party after a dispute over music. The accused was 23 years old, he had a “lengthy criminal record”, he was “firmly entrenched in the criminal subculture”, and he was a “moderate risk for violent recidivism”. The parole ineligibility period was set at 18 years. In Belic, the accused took a loaded handgun to a student pub, created a confrontation, and shot and killed one person while injuring two others. He was “an adult in his twenties” with “an extensive criminal record reflecting violence”, including a prior firearms prohibition. The parole ineligibility period was set at 18 years. Finally, in Sarrazin the accused shot and killed “a rival gang member” on a public street corner in Ottawa, after what appears to have been some degree of planning and preparation. The accused Sarrazin was the shooter. He had a prior record, described as “not all that serious”, but he was a member of a criminal “street gang”. The parole ineligibility period was set at 18 years.

[22] It can be seen that all four of these cases in the 18 to 22 year parole ineligibility range involved recidivists with prior criminal records, some quite serious, and they involved dangerous public offences with multiple victims, or significant risk to multiple victims, or with gang-related motives. The present case bears some similarities to these cases, in terms of the circumstances of the offence, but Mr. Hayles-Wilson is a better situated offender than the four accused in these cases.

[23] What remains is the group of cases in the mid-range, where the parole ineligibility period was set between 14 and 16 years. These cases are the closest to the present case. See R. v. Danvers, supra; R. v. Grant (2016), 2016 ONCA 639, 342 C.C.C. (3d) 514 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Doucette (2015), 2015 ONCA 583, 328 C.C.C. (3d) 211 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Monney, supra; R. v. John, 2011 ONSC 3313; R. v. Stewart, [2008] O.J. No. 5449 (S.C.J.).

[24] In Grant, the murder took place on a busy public street in Toronto. Thirteen shots were fired from one vehicle into another moving vehicle, killing one person and injuring three others. There were elements of impulsiveness to the offence, as it was preceded by provoking behaviour from two of the victims. The 21 year old shooter had a minor prior record. Prison records indicated that he had “excellent prospects for rehabilitation”, after having served six and a half years of his sentence by the time of the appeal. The Court of Appeal imposed a 14 year period of parole ineligibility. The present offence is more serious than the offence in Grant, because of the lack of impulsiveness and the evidence of planning in the present case. In addition, I am not yet as confident as the Court was in Grant concerning Mr. Hayles-Wilson’s prospects for rehabilitation.

[25] Doucette was a case that bears a number of similarities to the present case. The murder took place after an altercation in a bar. The accused “routinely carried a loaded handgun” and “waited outside of the bar to avenge” the earlier “disrespect” that the victim had shown towards him in the bar. One of the bullets fired by the accused at the deceased also hit a bystander. The accused was 20 years old and had a minor prior record. The jury rejected his account, alleging a sudden need for self-defence, but also found insufficient evidence of “planning and deliberation”. The Court of Appeal upheld the 15 year parole ineligibility period imposed by the trial judge. Doherty J.A. stated:

The circumstances of this murder placed it squarely among those that demand a strong denunciatory sentence. The appellant, armed with a loaded handgun, opened fire on Mr. Batisse on a public street. He not only shot Mr. Batisse three times, he wounded Mr. Miranda with a fourth shot… The sentence imposed by the trial judge is not out of line with sentences imposed in similar cases involving youthful offenders convicted of second degree murder: see Danvers; Stewart.

[26] The leading authority in Ontario concerning the need for “exemplary” sentences in these kinds of cases remains Danvers. In that case, the accused murdered a security employee at a crowded night club in Toronto, after he was told to leave the club. The murder was described as “motiveless, impulsive and senseless”, by both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. In other words, it lacked the aggravating factor of planning that is present in the case at bar. The accused was only 19 years old but he had a relatively serious prior criminal record for drug trafficking and weapons offences. Mr. Hayles-Wilson was somewhat older but he is a better situated offender than the accused in Danvers. The Court of Appeal held that a 15 year period of parole ineligibility properly balanced the gravity of the particular offence in that case and the youthfulness of the accused.

[27] In Monney, the two accused were both found to have fired their guns, killing a young man outside an apartment building in Toronto. There was a history of animosity between certain young males in two adjacent Toronto neighbourhoods. The two accused were both gang members in one neighbourhood and the deceased was shot and killed in the other neighbourhood. The trial judge found that there was “a definite plan” between the two accused, to go into the adjacent neighbourhood “to shoot someone”, although the trial judge could not conclude that “the plan was to commit murder… as distinct from simply intending to shoot someone”. He also found that “they may not have deliberated upon their plan”. The two accused both had prior criminal records, although they were both young (age 18 and 21). The trial judge was “not optimistic concerning their prospects for rehabilitation” but could not say that “rehabilitation is entirely beyond the pale”. He imposed 15 year periods of parole ineligibility for both accused. Mr. Hayles-Wilson is a better situated offender that the two accused in Monney, although the offence in the present case is more serious because the evidence of planning is stronger. I have no doubt that in this case there was a plan to murder a targeted victim, namely, Neeko Mitchell, given the timing and sequence of the events, the number of bullets fired, the location of the entry wounds, and the proximity of the two parties. This was not a plan to simply drive in and shoot some random victim in an adjacent neighbourhood and then flee, as in Monney.

[28] In John, the murder took place on a crowded street in Toronto after the annual Jamaica Day celebration. The accused pulled out a loaded handgun and shot the deceased during an attempted robbery. The accused was only 19 years old but he had an “extensive youth and adult criminal record”, and he was in breach of both his terms of bail and a firearms prohibition order. A 15 year period of parole ineligibility was imposed. Mr. Hayles-Wilson is a better situated offender than the accused in John, although the offence in the present case is more serious due to the evidence of planning.

[29] The last case in this mid-range group of cases is Stewart. The murder took place in a crowded downtown square in Toronto, after the annual Caribana parade. The accused and the deceased were both gang members involved in drug dealing. There was some kind of “confrontation” between them, the accused pulled out a loaded handgun, and he shot the deceased who was unarmed. The 23 year old accused habitually carried a loaded gun and was a “committed gangster” with a prior criminal record. The jury rejected his account of self-defence. The trial judge imposed a 16 year period of parole ineligibility. As in the previous three cases – Danvers, Monney, and John – Mr. Hayles-Wilson is a better situated offender than the accused in Stewart, but the offence in the present case is more serious because it was a targeted planned murder.

[30] Based on the above analysis of the case law, and applying the principle of parity set out in s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, I am satisfied that 14 to 16 years of parole ineligibility is appropriate for this offence and this offender. Given that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in this case, already set out above, are relatively equally balanced, I would situate the present case in the middle of the applicable range. Accordingly, a 15 year period of parole ineligibility is appropriate in this case.

F. CONCLUSION

[31] For all the reasons set out above, the sentence in this case is life imprisonment, pursuant to s. 745(c), and the period of parole ineligibility is set at 15 years, pursuant to s. 745.4.

M.A. Code J.

Released: July 13, 2018