COURT FILE NO.: 15-R2133

DATE: 2019/04/17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DEINSBERG G. ST. HILAIRE

Accused

Julian Daller and Lisa Miles, for the Crown

Eric Granger, for the Accused

HEARD AT OTTAWA: February 25, 2019

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE SENTENCING

Aitken J.

Offence

[1] On November 2, 2018, Deinsberg St. Hilaire pled guilty to and was found guilty of obstruction of a peace officer in the execution of his or her duty between June 28 and July 7, 2015, contrary to s. 129 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. On that date, Mr. St. Hilaire was found not guilty of dangerous driving causing the death of Andrew Nevin and not guilty of failure to stop his vehicle after it struck and killed Mr. Nevin with intent to escape civil or criminal liability. Thus, my task here today is to sentence Mr. St. Hilaire only in regard to the offence of obstruction of a peace officer.

[2] The offence of obstruction of a peace officer in the exercise of his or her duty carries a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment.

Evidence Regarding Obstruction of a Peace Officer

[3] Mr. St. Hilaire’s pickup truck struck and killed Andrew Nevin on Leitrim Road at approximately 5:55 a.m. on Sunday morning, June 28, 2015, as Mr. St. Hilaire was driving home in a tired state from his mother’s residence, and Mr. Nevin was riding his bicycle on the shoulder of the road. At trial, the evidence fell short of establishing that Mr. St. Hilaire saw Mr. Nevin on his bicycle prior to the impact. The evidence also fell short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that, following the impact, Mr. St. Hilaire was aware that he had struck a person with his truck.

[4] I find that, by the time of impact, Mr. St. Hilaire had nodded off to sleep. He was startled awake by a bang. He looked in his mirrors but did not see anything amiss. He continued to drive home. Once at home, Mr. St. Hilaire checked the front of the pickup truck. According to him, at that time, he only noticed that his right headlight had been damaged; he did not appreciate that the truck’s hood and fender had also been damaged. Although I question the timing of when Mr. St. Hilaire realized that the damage to the vehicle was more extensive than a broken right headlight, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that even after he noticed the damage to the fender and hood, he suspected or realized that he had been involved in a collision with a cyclist.

[5] That Sunday afternoon, Mr. St. Hilaire ordered two new matching headlights. He picked them up and installed them the following day so that he could drive his pickup truck with two functioning lights and not risk being stopped by the police. He did not take any steps at that time to repair the damage to the fender and hood of the pickup truck, nor did he take any steps at that time to hide the pickup truck.

[6] It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any steps taken by Mr. St. Hilaire up to that point amounted to obstruction of a peace officer.

[7] The following summary taken from the judgment in R. v. St. Hilaire, 2018 ONSC 6224, at paras. 39-42, sets out the evidence that did support a finding of guilt in regard to obstruction of a peace officer:

On Canada Day, Mr. St. Hilaire’s wife read something on the news which led her to believe that Mr. St. Hilaire had been involved in a fatal collision when driving home on Leitrim Road in the early morning of June 28, 2015. It was reported that the police were looking for a pickup truck that fit the description of Mr. St. Hilaire’s truck. According to Mr. St. Hilaire, when he heard this, his heart was gripped by fear – for his family and himself. He did not know what to do. Days had passed since the incident and he had taken steps to repair his pickup truck. As a man of colour, he was afraid of how he would be treated by the police if he were to contact them. He felt poorly treated by the police in earlier dealings and attributed that to the colour of his skin. After speaking with his brother, Che, Mr. St. Hilaire decided not to go to the police but, instead, to get his truck repaired.

Mr. St. Hilaire put a tarp over the front of the truck. His brother, Che, arranged for Mr. St. Hilaire’s truck to be repaired at a garage on Boundary Road owned by a friend. Mr. St. Hilaire and Che drove the truck to that location one night. On the instruction of the owner of the garage, Mr. St. Hilaire removed the truck’s licence plates and placed them on the front seat of the vehicle. The garage owner ordered a new quarter panel and hood. The garage owner had a friend, Shawn Nadeau, who owned another garage and body shop on Leeds Avenue, pick up Mr. St. Hilaire’s truck one night, take it back to his garage, and install the new parts. When Mr. Nadeau drove the pickup truck to his garage, there were no problems with the operation of the vehicle.

Meanwhile, on July 6, 2015, the police, who had been tracking down white Ford F-250 pickup trucks in the Ottawa area, arrived at Mr. St. Hilaire’s door while he was at work. Mr. St. Hilaire’s wife told the police that her husband should be back home at about 8:00 p.m. She alerted Mr. St. Hilaire of the visit. Mr. St. Hilaire moved to the Adams Airport Inn in an effort to avoid police detection. Unbeknownst to Mr. St. Hilaire and his wife, the couple’s premises were under police surveillance from 6:45 a.m. the following day.

On July 7, 2015, Che drove Mr. St. Hilaire to Mr. Nadeau’s garage to collect the repaired pickup truck. Mr. St. Hilaire reattached the vehicle’s licence plates. Mr. St. Hilaire immediately went to a car wash, after which he went to a residential address where he was working on a contract. After Mr. St. Hilaire had left Mr. Nadeau’s garage, the police visited Mr. Nadeau and seized the damaged parts from Mr. St. Hilaire’s truck. Shortly after that, the police arrested Mr. St. Hilaire.

[8] I find that the conduct of Mr. St. Hilaire that amounted to obstruction of a peace officer occurred over a period of seven days – seven terrible days in the life of Mr. Nevin’s family and friends during which they were desperate for answers as to how Mr. Nevin had been killed.

Victim Impact Statements

[9] It is impossible to express the loss experienced by Andrew Nevin’s family and friends following his sudden, tragic death. Clearly, his family members are having a very difficult time coping with that loss and accepting that a court has not assigned criminal liability to Mr. St. Hilaire for having caused Mr. Nevin’s death. Their struggles have been made much worse because Mr. St. Hilaire did not go to the police as soon as he suspected that the truck he was driving had killed Mr. Nevin. To Mr. Nevin’s family, this callousness felt like a huge betrayal on top of a devastating loss.

[10] Victim impact statements were submitted and read in court by Andrew Nevin’s father, Kerry Nevin, his partner, Nadia Robinson, his sister-in-law, Lindsay Nevin, and his son, Bryce. All spoke of what a kind, decent, playful, loving human being Mr. Nevin was. On the morning of the collision, Mr. Nevin was heading back to the old home where his family had been living to get a head start on some final repairs so that Ms. Robinson and their children would not have to spend the day tending to those repairs rather than getting established in their new home. The whole family was very excited about the move and considered it a new start that would bring a better life for all of them. That morning, of course, did just the opposite.

[11] Kerry Nevin spoke of how thoughtful his son had been in helping him move to London and how Andrew had promised his father that he would be there to help when he moved back to Ottawa. Kerry Nevin had raised Andrew and his brother on his own from the time they were infants. Kerry and Andrew Nevin were very close. Kerry Nevin is now filled with so much pain and anger that he is incapable of providing support to others in the family who are also deeply mourning the loss of Andrew. Kerry Nevin used to be a beloved father, father-in-law, and grandpa. He has withdrawn from these roles, resulting in his son, Brent, his daughter-in-laws, and his grandchildren feeling they lost him, as well as Andrew Nevin, on the morning of June 28, 2015.

[12] All of Andrew Nevin’s loved ones spoke of how much he loved his two sons, Jacob and Bryce, how he had never missed Bryce’s soccer games over the years, and how he was a very present and positive force in his sons’ lives. Since Mr. Nevin’s death, Bryce has stopped playing soccer – the thing he enjoyed most in life – because his biggest fan, his father, is no longer there. Bryce had been a good student, but his grades started to fall after his father’s death, he skipped classes, and he got into drugs and alcohol. Bryce suffers from anxiety, depression, insomnia and anger problems. Jacob could not bring himself to come to court because of the pain and anger he is experiencing. According to his mother, he has been struggling with extremely unhealthy choices and is being reckless about his own future and safety. He is overwhelmed by anger and bitterness.

[13] Nadia Robinson has tried her best to model compassion following Mr. Nevin’s death. She has tried to remember all that was good about Mr. Nevin and to encourage those around her to focus on the future and to work hard at creating something positive; however, she feels she is fighting a losing battle. She describes her family as splitting apart after Mr. Nevin’s death due to the anger and pain family members are experiencing. She fears that her boys are pulling away from her. They are afraid to love too much in case they end up experiencing another terrible loss.

[14] Ms. Robinson very eloquently explained the impact Mr. Nevin’s death has had on her family as follows:

I could keep going but mere words can’t convey the true impact that St. Hilaire’s actions have had on us over the years. We lost someone who was absolutely irreplaceable. The people who we were on June 27th are gone. The people who we would have become never had a chance to exist. In many ways, they died along with Andy that morning. We became the people that we are today and those people are angrier, more hurt and more disillusioned than we would have been if Andy was still with us. We are people who are in pain, who have suffered and who continue to suffer because there are some losses which cannot ever be truly healed.

[15] Most of the victim impact statements focused on the loss of Andrew Nevin and how devastating that loss has been to his loved ones. I am not sentencing Mr. St. Hilaire for having caused Mr. Nevin’s death and for having left the scene of the collision – I found Mr. St. Hilaire not guilty of a criminal offence in regard to either of these actions. However, I think it is important to recount just how much pain has been experienced by the Nevin family as a result of Andrew Nevin’s death to reinforce just how powerful a blow it was to all of them when Mr. St. Hilaire, suspecting or realizing that he had caused Mr. Nevin’s death, did not come forward and assume responsibility. He should have realized how important it would have been to Mr. Nevin’s family to understand how the tragic events had occurred. He should have realized how important it would have been for the family to hear him say he was sorry. Their terrible task of trying to cope with Mr. Nevin’s death may have been made, in some small part, a bit easier if Mr. St. Hilaire had extended that level of compassion to them. Instead, his silence and his efforts to conceal his involvement in the tragic events of that morning added to the hurt experienced by the Nevin family and increased their sense of disillusionment.

Evidence Regarding Mr. St. Hilaire

[16] Mr. St. Hilaire is 43 years old. He was born in Dominica. When he was two, his mother moved to Canada, leaving Mr. St. Hilaire in the care of an aunt, who was raising 15 other children at the time. When Mr. St. Hilaire was seven years of age, he came to Canada to live with his mother. A year or two later, Mr. St. Hilaire’s mother married his step-father. She had three other children: two sons and a daughter. Mr. St. Hilaire’s mother and step-siblings live in Ottawa, and he is close with all of them. His relationship with his step-father is not as close.

[17] Mr. St. Hilaire’s childhood was not easy. The family was relatively poor. Mr. St. Hilaire’s step-father treated him differently from the other children and could be tough and verbally abusive with Mr. St. Hilaire. Mr. St. Hilaire was expected to help his mother with his younger siblings. School was not easy for Mr. St. Hilaire, as he had to move schools frequently due to the family moving homes on a number of occasions. Being the only black child in his class, and not speaking English proficiently, resulted in Mr. St. Hilaire being bullied at school.

[18] Despite these challenges, Mr. St. Hilaire graduated from high school and attended college for a security management program.

[19] Mr. St. Hilaire married his first wife when he was 21 and she was 18. They have two children together: a daughter and a son. The couple separated and the wife moved to Texas with the two children. That was very hard on Mr. St. Hilaire, as he did not have the financial resources to visit them.

[20] Mr. St. Hilaire and his wife, Crystal Johnson, have been together for about 13 years, though they only married approximately three years ago. They have a close and loving relationship and consider each other their best friend. Ms. Johnson has three children from a previous relationship, one with special needs. Mr. St. Hilaire has been in a parental role with those children and they love him.

[21] Mr. St. Hilaire has been a church-goer most of his life and is very involved in his church community. Mr. St. Hilaire’s pastor has known Mr. St. Hilaire since he was a teenager and considers him not only a committed member of his congregation but also a friend.

[22] As a teenager, Mr. St. Hilaire had a number of odd jobs such as working at an ice cream cart and having a paper route; however, his involvement with Cadets took up much of his time. At the age of 18, Mr. St. Hilaire joined the Armed Forces as a reservist on a part-time basis. He worked there until he was approximately 25. After graduating from college, he worked full-time as a security officer for the federal government; however, he was laid off after three months when the company underwent a strike. It was at this point that Mr. St. Hilaire started to work in landscaping.

[23] It was while he was employed as a landscaper that Mr. St. Hilaire received funding from the government to go back to college and take a horticulture program. He graduated in nine months with honours. He realized that he loved horticulture and being outdoors doing manual work. He worked for several different landscaping companies over the years and then opened his own landscaping company about 10 years ago. Mr. St. Hilaire has an excellent reputation among his customers and many have offered him their support after these tragic events. A number provided letters to be considered on the sentencing. These individuals described Mr. St. Hilaire as being honest, respectful, hard-working, reliable, conscientious, calm, and personable. They see Mr. St. Hilaire as a man of integrity, with strong social and family values.

[24] Mr. St. Hilaire has never had an alcohol or drug problem. Although he will have an alcoholic drink on social or special occasions, he does not drink to excess.

[25] All collateral sources for the pre-sentence report advised that Mr. St. Hilaire is a “stand-up guy” who is generous with his time and concern for others, kind-hearted, quiet, respectful, and trustworthy. How Mr. St. Hilaire handled matters after suspecting his involvement in Mr. Nevin’s death was very much out-of-character for him.

[26] There is no question in my mind that Mr. St. Hilaire feels very guilty for having caused the death of Andrew Nevin and for having deprived the Nevin family of a son, a father, a partner, and a friend. He struggles to live with what happened and he appreciates just how devastating Mr. Nevin’s death has been for his family and friends. Mr. St. Hilaire is appreciative of the love and support he has received from his family, his friends, his co-workers, and his clients following these tragic events.

[27] There is also no question in my mind that Mr. St. Hilaire feels a deep remorse for how he acted once he suspected that his pickup truck had been involved in the fatal accident that killed Mr. Nevin and after he realized that the police were looking for him. I accept that Mr. St. Hilaire reacted out of fear as to what his involvement in this incident would mean – not only for himself, but particularly for his family. He knew that it was wrong to hide his involvement in the accident. I believe that he wanted to do the right thing but did not have the confidence to do so out of fear. I also accept that this fear was likely heightened as a result of Mr. St. Hilaire’s experience with racism as a black person growing up in this community. I find that concealing his involvement in Mr. Nevin’s death was not Mr. St. Hilaire’s initial intention – he was influenced to follow this course of action by his brother’s concerns. Where Mr. St. Hilaire failed was in finding the strength to do the right thing rather than being drawn into dishonourable and criminal behaviour.

Sentencing Objectives

[28] Under s. 718 of the Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of a number of listed objectives. In the context of this case, the most important objectives are: (1) to denounce the type of unlawful conduct engaged in by Mr. St. Hilaire, namely the obstruction of a peace officer in the exercise of his or her duties; (2) to deter others from engaging in this type of conduct; and (3) to recognize the harm done to Andrew Nevin’s family as a result of the obstruction.

[29] This is not a case where specific deterrence or the promotion of a sense of responsibility on the part of Mr. St. Hilaire are significant objectives. I say that because I believe that these objectives have already been met. I have no doubt that Mr. St. Hilaire fully appreciates the hurt and the harm that he has caused the Nevin family by not coming forward as soon as he realized he may have been involved in a fatal accident and by attempting to hide his involvement in that accident. I have no doubt that he feels deep remorse and shame for his actions during the week of June 28 to July 7, 2015 and that he would never make the same decision again not to be honest and forthcoming with the police when he has caused harm to another person. Whatever punishment I impose on Mr. St. Hilaire is unlikely to augment the sense of responsibility, the guilt, and the shame that he is already experiencing.

[30] That being said, however, Mr. St. Hilaire’s actions in trying to repair his truck to get rid of the evidence of its involvement in the fatal collision and in trying to hide from the police showed, at the time, a blatant lack of respect for Mr. Nevin and, particularly, for his loved ones who so desperately were seeking answers as to what had happened to Mr. Nevin. It also showed a disregard for Mr. Nevin’s dignity as a fellow human being, and for the dignity of his grieving family. The lack of respect shown to Mr. Nevin and his family by Mr. St. Hilaire attempting to hide his involvement in Mr. Nevin’s death added a further layer of hurt and disbelief for the poor Nevin family to deal with. It is my obligation to clearly state that those who cause harm to others – even if the causing of such harm is not of a criminal nature – must assume responsibility for having done so and must not act so as to obstruct the police investigation of events.

[31] In imposing a sentence, the court should increase or decrease the sentence that otherwise would be imposed to take into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender (s. 718.2(a) of the Code). The offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances (s. 718.2(d) of the Code). All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders (s. 718.2(e) of the Code). A conditional sentence may be available to someone convicted of obstruction of a peace officer.

Position of Crown Counsel and Defence Counsel

[32] Crown counsel is seeking a sentence of one year imprisonment.

[33] Defence counsel is seeking a short period of probation and community service. In the alternative, Defence counsel asks for a conditional sentence. In the final alternative, Defence counsel asks for a period of incarceration of no more than 90 days so that an intermittent sentence would be possible.

Analysis

Impact on Mr. St. Hilaire

[34] Mr. St. Hilaire was arrested on July 7, 2015. He spent seven days in custody. He was released on July 13, 2015 subject to a recognizance that included the following conditions: that he reside with his mother; that he deposit his driver’s licence and passport with the Ottawa Police Services, that he not reapply for a passport or any other travel permits or documents; and that he not be in the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle. Obviously, it was difficult for Mr. St. Hilaire to carry on with his landscaping business when he was unable to drive a vehicle.

[35] On December 7, 2015, the terms of Mr. St. Hilaire’s recognizance were amended so that he was able to live at home with his wife and step-children, he was able to drive his pickup truck with plow equipment going to and from employment and while on job duties; and he was able to operate a skid steer and a mini excavator on job sites. The restrictions relating to Mr. St. Hilaire’s use of a motor vehicle were relaxed following his acquittal in regard to dangerous driving and leaving the scene, but I was not provided with the details of the amendment.

[36] Another impact that Mr. St. Hilaire has already experienced is significant media coverage of the fatal collision and his role in it. He has been pictured both in print media and on the television, details of his life have been publicized, and the devastating impact Mr. Nevin’s death has had on his family has been fully exposed.

Aggravating Factors

[37] None of the aggravating factors listed in s. 718.2 of the Code are present in this case.

[38] No other aggravating factors – separate from the offence itself – have been identified, aside from the fact that Mr. St. Hilaire engaged in the offence from July 1st to July 7th – a significant period of time. This was not a case where Mr. St. Hilaire on his own reversed the course of action he had undertaken and turned himself into the police. He waited until the police found him before he acknowledged his involvement in the accident.

Mitigating Factors

[39] There are several mitigating factors:

• Mr. St. Hilaire has no criminal record.

• Mr. St. Hilaire pled guilty to obstruction of a peace officer at the outset of the trial.

• Mr. St. Hilaire’s behaviour in trying to cover up his involvement in the fatal collision by getting rid of evidence and by trying to hide from the police is out of character. Mr. St. Hilaire has been described by his family, his pastor, his friends, his co-workers, and his clients as being an honest, decent, person with strong moral values and much integrity.

• Mr. St. Hilaire’s actions in obstructing a peace officer were the result of his being overwhelmed with fear as to how he would be treated in the justice system – a fear arising in part due to experiences earlier in life when he was subjected to racism and bullying in the school context, and due to experiences more recently when he did not feel fairly treated by police officers during traffic stops. In recent years, much has been reported in all forms of media regarding how various racial minorities in our community experience interactions with the police. I accept that, whether or not their fears are justified, members of racial minorities may have some fear as to how they will be treated by the police. In saying this, I am not suggesting that those fears justify someone obstructing a peace officer. I am simply accepting that fear of how he and his family would be treated played a role in Mr. St. Hilaire making the unwise decision not to cooperate with the police in their investigation of the fatal collision.

• Mr. St. Hilaire was influenced in his decision making by his brother, who fuelled his fears and influenced him, against his own better judgment, to follow the course of action that resulted in his conviction for obstruction of a peace officer.

• Mr. St. Hilaire has expressed genuine remorse in regard to the fatal collision and in regard to his obstructing the peace officers’ investigation of the collision. I accept his expression of remorse as being sincere. He realizes the devastating effect Mr. Nevin’s death has had on the Nevin family.

• Mr. St. Hilaire has been in a stable relationship with Crystal Johnson for approximately 13 years. Mr. St. Hilaire is a devoted spouse and a devoted father to his three step children, the eldest of whom suffers from a disorder that effectively limits the movement of his arms and legs. Mr. St. Hilaire’s spouse must devote most of her time to caring for this child. She does some house cleaning to contribute to the support of the family but Mr. St. Hilaire is the family’s primary financial supporter. Mr. St. Hilaire also helps to care for the disabled child.

• Mr. St. Hilaire has successfully operated his landscaping business for approximately 10 years. He has an excellent reputation in this field.

• Mr. St. Hilaire has the support of his mother, his siblings, his wife, his step children, his pastor, his friends, and his clients.

[40] I reject the argument advanced by Defence counsel that the fact that Mr. St. Hilaire was not found guilty of dangerous driving causing death or leaving the scene of a fatality somehow reduces the significance of the obstruction conduct in which he engaged. Mr. St. Hilaire did not know what findings of fact would be made by the court and how the court would apply the law to those facts when he decided to obstruct the peace officers.

Sentencing Options

[41] Defence counsel urges me to sentence Mr. St. Hilaire to a period of probation, with community service being an added feature. In my view, such a sentence would not provide a strong enough message of denunciation and general deterrence to those who might contemplate obstructing a peace officer who is investigating a potential crime.

[42] For a strong enough message of denunciation and general deterrence to be given, a period of incarceration is required.

Conditional Sentence

[43] Based on the directions in the Code regarding sentencing, I must consider whether a conditional sentence is available and whether it would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case; in other words, whether Mr. St. Hilaire can be adequately supervised in the community during his period of incarceration.

[44] The offence is one for which the maximum sentence is two years. The Crown is seeking a sentence of one year. The facts of this case are such that the maximum sentence possible would not be considered appropriate. Thus, whatever sentence I would consider would be less than two years – a requirement before a conditional sentence can be granted (s. 742.1 of the Code).

[45] As will be evident from my comments above, I am satisfied that Mr. St. Hilaire’s serving his sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community in any respect – another requirement before a conditional sentence can be granted (s. 742.1(a) of the Code). There is nothing in the evidence or in the pre-sentence report which would lead me to think that Mr. St. Hilaire presents any risk of reoffending in any fashion.

[46] There is no minimum term of imprisonment for the offence of obstruction of a peace officer (s. 742.1(b) of the Code) and the offence of obstruction of a peace officer is not excluded from the conditional sentence provisions by virtue of any other provision in the Code (see ss. 742.1(c)-(f) of the Code).

[47] The question, therefore, is whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Code. In my view, it would be. A conditional sentence is still a sentence of imprisonment. As has been stated in many cases, it embodies denunciatory and deterrent qualities.

Disposition

[48] I sentence Mr. St. Hilaire to a period of incarceration of twelve months, to be served in the community as a conditional sentence.

[49] The following mandatory provisions shall apply to this conditional sentence:

• To keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

• To appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

• To report to a supervisor

o within two working days after the making of the conditional sentence order, and

o thereafter, when required by the supervisor and in the manner directed by the supervisor;

• to remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor; and

• to notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

[50] The following additional provisions shall apply:

• Mr. St. Hilaire shall abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Kerry Nevin, Nadia Robinson, Jacob Nevin, Bryce Nevin, Brent Nevin, and Lindsay Nevin, unless such person gives their written consent.

• Mr. St. Hilaire shall be subject to a curfew requiring him to be at his residence between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. every day, subject to an exception applying in the case of a medical emergency on behalf of himself or any member of his family, and subject to the further exception that the sentence supervisor may give Mr. St. Hilaire permission to be away from his residence between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on any given day for work purposes (for example, to engage in snow plowing), as long as the sentence supervisor imposes replacement curfew hours to be in effect at another time that day or on another day.

• Mr. St. Hilaire shall perform 100 hours of community service during the twelve-month conditional sentence.

• Mr. St. Hilaire’s passport shall remain on deposit during the period of the conditional sentence. During this period, Mr. St. Hilaire shall not reapply for a passport or any other travel permits or documents.

[51] Defence counsel, you are instructed to review with Mr. St. Hilaire the provisions in ss. 742.4 and 742.6 of the Code and to provide Mr. St. Hilaire with a copy of both sections of the Code for his future reference.

Aitken J.

Released: April 17, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: 15-R2133

DATE: 2019/04/17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DEINSBERG G. ST. HILAIRE

Accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE SENTENCING

Aitken J.

Released: April 17, 2019