Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 18-02519-01/02 DATE: 20190729 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – DIMYTRI INGRAM-PIRUZEVSKI Defendant

Counsel: Ms. V. Szirmak and Ms. L. McCallum, for the Crown Mr. D. North, for the Defendant

HEARD: June 18 and 27, 2019

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Regional Senior Justice Fuerst

Introduction

[1] A drug deal between Dimytri Ingram-Piruzevski and Keegan Blyth took a tragic turn when Mr. Blyth was stabbed in the driveway of his parents’ home. Mr. Blyth suffered multiple injuries, which proved to be fatal.

[2] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and others were charged with second degree murder as a result.

[3] With Crown consent, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski pleaded guilty to manslaughter. His plea and the agreed facts read in in support of the plea were taken under affirmation at the request of Crown counsel.

[4] Crown and defence counsel agree that a substantial penitentiary sentence must be imposed. They disagree, however, as to its length.

The Circumstances of the Offence

(a) The Drug Deal

[5] In March 2018, 19 year old Keegan Blyth lived with his parents and younger sister. Three of his friends, Mitchell Pepper, Stephen Chanady and Emma Diamantakos, were living at the house temporarily. The four resided primarily in the basement.

[6] Mr. Blyth worked for his father. At times he was paid in cash, and at times he was paid on the company payroll. Mr. Pepper and Mr. Chanady worked informally for Mr. Blyth’s father. They were paid in cash.

[7] Mr. Blyth, Mr. Pepper and Mr. Chanady were all regular daily users of marijuana.

[8] On the evening of March 26, 2018, Mr. Blyth was hanging out in the basement of his parents’ house, with Mr. Pepper and Mr. Chanady. The three were consuming marijuana. At some point early in the evening, Mr. Blyth also consumed cocaine.

[9] The three young men wanted to buy a larger quantity of marijuana. They pooled about $1200, most of which came from Mr. Blyth.

[10] Mr. Blyth called a friend, Steven Stelnick, and asked who they could contact to buy a large amount of marijuana. Mr. Stelnick suggested contacting Dimytri Ingram-Piruzevski. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski, who was 19 years old, was a known drug dealer. He sold mostly marijuana, but also cocaine and LSD. Mr. Stelnick often purchased marijuana from him.

[11] Mr. Blyth did not know Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and had never bought drugs from him before. However, after getting contact information from Mr. Stelnick, at 9:54 p.m. he contacted Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski. In a series of phone calls and texts, the two negotiated the sale of a pound and a half of marijuana for $2400. The transaction was to occur at Mr. Blyth’s home.

[12] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski contacted Mr. Stelnick to inquire about Mr. Blyth. Mr. Stelnick confirmed that he had given Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s number to Mr. Blyth, but said that he was not “tight” with Mr. Blyth and did not “chill” with him much. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski said that he was bringing his “boys" with him to the sale, and that Mr. Blyth “might be tryna hit a lick”, but that he was not worried because he had his “riders”.

[13] Justin Ryan and a 16 year old, Paul S., were at Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s home that evening. Mr. Ryan regularly drove Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski to his drug deals in exchange for money and occasionally, drugs. That evening, the three of them were hanging out and smoking marijuana. The youth also consumed cocaine.

[14] Mr. Ryan and the youth agreed to go with Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski to the drug deal at Mr. Blyth’s home, as Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was concerned about the quantity of marijuana that he was selling to a stranger. Mr. Ryan was to drive Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and the youth to and from the deal.

[15] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski had been stabbed the year before. Thereafter, he carried weapons and took steps so that it would not happen again. Mr. Ryan and the youth were aware of this.

[16] Before the three left Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s home, he gave the youth a folding knife. Its handle was approximately 13 centimetres long. Its blade was slightly curved, with double sharp edges. The blade was approximately 10 centimetres long. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski armed himself with a knife, a taser, and an extendable baton. He knew that the knives were lethal weapons. He also knew that this drug deal was a dangerous endeavour, and that someone could be grievously injured.

[17] The group left for Mr. Blyth’s home around midnight, in Mr. Ryan’s car. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski had a large quantity of marijuana in his backpack. He and Mr. Blyth continued to communicate by text. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski said that he was bringing two different kinds of mid-grade marijuana so that Mr. Blyth could see what he had. He said that his driver would drop him and his “boy” off, and after he and Mr. Blyth talked numbers, he would text his driver to come get him.

(b) The Stabbing

[18] At 12:23 a.m. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski texted Mr. Blyth that he had arrived. Mr. Ryan dropped off Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and the youth at the end of the driveway to the house, then parked up the street and waited.

[19] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and the youth met Mr. Blyth and Mr. Pepper on the driveway. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was carrying his backpack containing the marijuana. On his person he had the taser, the baton and the knife. The youth had the knife that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski gave him earlier. Mr. Blyth and Mr. Pepper were not wearing backpacks and did not have any weapons.

[20] Within moments, a physical altercation broke out between the youth and Mr. Blyth. The youth stabbed Mr. Blyth multiple times in the torso with the knife. Mr. Pepper tackled Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski to prevent him from intervening in the fight between the youth and Mr. Blyth. He punched and kicked Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski did not brandish any of the weapons he carried, did not get a swing in at Mr. Pepper, and did not have any physical contact with Mr. Blyth.

[21] Mr. Chanady ran out to help Mr. Blyth. In doing so, he was slashed in the arm by the youth.

[22] Mr. Blyth yelled out that he had been stabbed. He stumbled back to the house, assisted by Mr. Pepper and Mr. Chanady. He collapsed on the front porch. He was bleeding significantly from his torso and body. His parents were woken, and his mother called 911.

[23] Meanwhile, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski and the youth ran to Mr. Ryan’s car, where it was down the street. Mr. Ryan drove them back to Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s residence. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski saw the bloody knife in the youth’s possession. The youth said he had pulled out the knife and believed that he had stabbed Mr. Blyth. At the residence, someone washed the blood off the knife. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski put it in his backpack.

[24] Mr. Blyth was taken to hospital by ambulance. He underwent emergency surgery. He was placed on life support. He was pronounced dead on March 29, 2018.

(c) The Arrest

[25] On the evening of March 28, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski told Mr. Ryan that they had to leave town. They knew the police were looking for them. Mr. Ryan picked up Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski. Half an hour later, the police stopped the vehicle. Both men were arrested.

[26] In Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s backpack, the police found the knife used to stab Mr. Blyth plus two other knives, a taser and a baton. They also found over $12,000 in cash, and quantities of marijuana, cocaine and LSD that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski had for the purpose of trafficking.

[27] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was cooperative and polite with police. After he spoke with counsel, he gave the police information that assisted in the investigation.

(d) The Injuries to Mr. Blyth

[28] Mr. Blyth sustained four stab wounds to the upper and lower chest and abdomen, at least three of which alone would have caused his death. He also had a stab wound to the back of the left upper arm, incised wounds to both hands that were defensive type injuries, and blunt force injuries to the left forearm and back of the torso.

[29] The cause of death was stab wounds of the torso.

The Victim Impact Information

[30] A number of Victim Impact Statements were provided by the parents, siblings, grandparents, extended family members and friends of Keegan Blyth. He is described repeatedly as a kind-hearted, good-humoured, loyal, respectful and unselfish young man who loved his family deeply and valued his friendships.

[31] Despite having a severe form of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that caused spasms and twitching, as well as a learning disability, Mr. Blyth participated in sports, did volunteer work, and hoped to go on to college. His sudden violent death caused and continues to cause over-whelming grief, heartbreak, depression, anxiety and significant physical health problems to those who were closest to him. There are constant painful reminders that he is no longer with them.

[32] It is very clear that his family has been shattered by his death. His mother wrote, “As a mother, knowing you are completely helpless and totally incapable of saving your son and helping your family is a living nightmare.” She suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. She continued, “Now I am left with a void that can never be replaced. I am told I will need therapy and support for years to come if not the rest of my life…I will never recover from losing my boy. I will always have a hole in my heart.”

[33] His father struggles with guilt, pain, depression, anger and rage. He feels that he failed his son, his wife, his children and his family. He too has been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder. For months he was unable to attend to the daily operations of the company he runs. Even though family members stepped in to help, business declined by more than 50 per cent. He wrote, “I could count on one hand how many times I have cried ten years prior to my son’s attack. Now, every morning, every evening starts with tears, ends with tears and there are many times through the day that I still break down, thinking about my boy, my best friend, my hero.”

[34] Mr. Blyth’s younger sister, who was at home the night of the stabbing, now suffers from anxiety. She has been unable to attend school and have the life of a normal grade 8 student. Her whole world has been turned upside down.

[35] One of Keegan Blyth’s uncles expressed that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski inflicted a lifetime of pain and suffering on the Blyth family.

The Circumstances of Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski

[36] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski is now 20 years old. He has no criminal record.

[37] Materials filed on his behalf indicate that he has aboriginal ancestry. However, no details were provided to me. He waived the preparation of a Gladue report. Defence counsel did not request a pre-sentence report.

[38] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was born to teenaged parents. Although his parents never lived together, they both remained in his life. He was raised with the help of extended family members. His parents eventually married others, with whom they had children. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski spent time in the homes of each of his parents and their families.

[39] By the time he was 10 years old, both his mother and father had concerns about his functioning. A psychoeducational assessment was done. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder specified as Asperger’s Disorder. This was in addition to a diagnosis of ADHD, and a learning disability.

[40] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski had difficulty during his childhood and teen years with basic social etiquette, and with following rules. While he had the love and support of his parents and their spouses, as he grew older he sometimes struggled with moving back and forth between different households and parenting styles.

[41] As his stepfather put it, it became hard to guide him once he became a teenager. He began using drugs. He did not finish grade 10.

[42] At age 17, he moved in with his grandparents.

[43] In the summer of 2017, when he was 18, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was attacked and stabbed in a targeted attempt to rob him. The incident apparently was instigated by a girl he had considered his girlfriend. He was seriously injured, and taken to hospital. He had surgery, and remained hospitalized for a period of time.

[44] Ultimately, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski ended up living with friends in a rented house. He supported himself by selling drugs, which he was able to obtain in significant quantities.

[45] Since his arrest on March 29, 2018, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski has been held at Central East Correctional Centre, a period of 16 actual months. This totals 24 months when calculated on a one and a half to one basis.

[46] On a number of occasions, there have been lockdowns of his unit at the jail. On 68 occasions, his unit was locked down for 6 hours or more. The majority of these occasions were due to staffing shortages. When a unit is locked down, inmates are confined to their cells, with access to visits, phones, showers, dayroom and yard restricted and often denied. I find that hardship can be inferred from lockdown conditions.

[47] The numerous letters provided on behalf of Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski describe him as a kind and gentle person, and a generous and supportive friend. He has strong ongoing family support, especially from his parents and step-parents.

[48] In court, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski apologized to the family and friends of Keegan Blyth.

The Positions of the Parties

[49] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Szirmak seeks a sentence of 8 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one and an additional 42 days’ credit for lock-down days. She also seeks a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life, and a forfeiture order for the weapons, cash and drugs seized on arrest.

[50] She submits that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s moral blameworthiness is high in light of the aggravating factors, particularly that Mr. Blyth’s death occurred in the course of a drug deal; that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski enlisted the help of others; that he armed himself with multiple concealed weapons and armed a youth; that he was arrested while attempting to leave town with a co-accused; that at the time of his arrest he was in possession of drugs, cash and weapons including the knife used to cause death; that the deceased was an unarmed and vulnerable 19 year old; that multiple stab wounds were inflicted; and that Mr. Blyth’s death has had a significant impact on his immediate family in particular. She acknowledges the mitigating factors, specifically that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski is a youthful first offender; that he pleaded guilty; that the letters provided in support of him describe a person with positive qualities; and that he has rehabilitative support in the community. She contends, however, that the Crown’s sentencing position takes these mitigating factors into account.

[51] On behalf of Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski, Mr. North seeks a sentence in the range of 4 to 5 years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one with an additional 2 or 3 months credit for lockdowns. He does not object to the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

[52] He submits that there are powerful mitigating factors. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski is a youthful first offender. He was not on bail or probation at the time of the offence. He pleaded guilty very soon after the preliminary hearing. In doing so, he gave up the opportunity to raise the triable issues that are set out in the Agreed Statement of Fact. He pleaded guilty and acknowledged the agreed facts under affirmation, which is unusual and suggests that the Crown views him as a potential witness at the trials of the other accused. He gave the police information following his arrest that assisted the investigation. He went to the Blyth home at the request of Mr. Blyth, intending only to carry out a drug transaction. He armed himself out of concern that he was meeting with someone he did not know, but he did not intend to attack Mr. Blyth. He did not brandish a weapon or have any physical contact with Mr. Blyth at the scene. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski has family support and good rehabilitative prospects. Mr. North contends that cases where sentences of 8 years in jail have been imposed involved much more egregious facts than those in this case.

The Principles of Sentencing

[53] The objectives of sentencing long recognized at common law are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. They are: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.

[54] Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances.

[55] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at paragraph 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction.” The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge. See, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraphs 58 and 143.

[56] A diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for manslaughter. Accordingly, there is wide variation in the range of sentence. Ordinarily, a lengthy jail sentence is imposed for the offence of manslaughter, “to reflect society’s concern for the sanctity of life”: see, R. v. MacFarlane, 2012 ONCA 82, at paragraph 8.

[57] It is important to reiterate that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski pleaded guilty to manslaughter, not murder. While the consequences for the victim of an act of manslaughter are every bit as dire as an act of murder, manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or to cause bodily harm to the victim that the perpetrator knows is likely to cause death, which is required for the offence of murder. The moral blameworthiness of the perpetrator of manslaughter is less than it is for the perpetrator of murder. And, while murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, manslaughter does not.

Analysis

[58] The death by an act of violence of a 19 year old young man is an unspeakable tragedy for those who loved him, and for the community at large. Nothing that I say today is meant to minimize the value of Keegan Blyth’s life, or to diminish the impact of his loss, particularly for his parents and siblings. I recognize the profound and lasting impact of his death. My task, however, is to identify and impose on Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski a fit sentence, guided by the purpose and principles of sentencing, and not by vengeance.

[59] The objectives of deterrence, particularly general deterrence, and denunciation are paramount considerations in determining the fit sentence in this case. Because Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski is a youthful offender, rehabilitation must also be given significant weight. See, R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854, at paragraph 19.

[60] This case features a constellation of aggravating factors. They include:

1. Mr. Blyth was killed in the course of an illegal pursuit by Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski, a drug deal for profit.
2. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski chose to involve others in his illegal activity that night, most particularly a young person.
3. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski armed himself with multiple weapons, including a knife. He brought the weapons to the drug deal, concealed on his person.
4. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski armed the youth with a knife that was clearly a lethal weapon.
5. Mr. Blyth was unarmed, and in no position to defend himself against a sudden attack by knife.
6. Multiple stab wounds were inflicted on Mr. Blyth.
7. Rather than rendering assistance to Mr. Blyth, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski fled the scene with his companions. He then tried to leave town with one of the co-accused, in an effort to avoid apprehension by the police.
8. When he was arrested, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was in possession of drugs, weapons and the knife the youth used to kill Mr. Blyth.
9. Mr. Blyth’s death had and continues to have a devastating impact on those closest to him, most particularly his parents and siblings.

[61] There are also a number of mitigating factors. They include:

1. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski is a youthful offender.
2. He has no prior criminal record.
3. He pleaded guilty very soon after the preliminary inquiry. He did so notwithstanding that there were triable issues he could have advanced at a trial. His guilty plea is a sign of his remorse and his willingness to accept responsibility for his offence. Additionally, it means that court time did not need to be allocated to a trial of the charge against him.
4. I accept, from his comments in court, that he is truly remorseful.
5. He did not brandish a weapon or inflict any harm on Mr. Blyth at the scene.
6. Following his arrest, he was cooperative and assisted the police in their investigation.
7. He is not without positive personal qualities. He has the support of his parents and other family members. All of this bodes well for his rehabilitation.

[62] I do not agree that the fact Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski pleaded guilty under affirmation is a mitigating factor. It may be that this will be of significance if he is called as a Crown witness at the trial of one or both of his co-accused, but that is speculative and remains to be seen. The taking of the plea under affirmation is a neutral factor on this sentencing.

[63] I do not ignore the information that Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski has Indigenous heritage. However, I was given virtually no information about that background. It is not possible for me to assess whether the systemic and background factors affecting aboriginal peoples in Canadian society have impacted his life in a way that bears on his moral blameworthiness or indicates which types of sentencing objectives should be prioritized. See, R. v. F.H.L., 2018 ONCA 83.

[64] I have reviewed the cases relied on by Crown counsel and by defence counsel. Not surprisingly, none of them are on all fours with this case. For example, in R. v. Krstic, 2017 ONSC 5204, R. v. Reid, 2012 ONSC 7521, and R. v. Cioppa, 2013 ONSC 1242, the accused received sentences of 8 years in jail. In Krstic, after instigating a confrontation between her boyfriend and the deceased with injury to the deceased as the objective, the female accused became a combatant in the events that culminated in her boyfriend stabbing the deceased. In Reid, the accused was on probation at the time of the offence, because of a conviction for another crime of violence. In Cioppa, the accused did not plead guilty, but was found guilty of manslaughter after a trial. None of those circumstances are present in this case.

[65] Equally, this is not a case like MacFarlane, which I referred to earlier, where Crown and defence counsel jointly asked the judge to impose a sentence of 4 years in jail. This case is factually different from R. v. Henry, 2015 ONSC 3905, where the accused did not know that his companion who shot the deceased brought a gun to the encounter.

[66] The stabbing of Keegan Blyth was a senseless killing. To be clear, Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski was not the stabber. But, this is a serious instance of manslaughter, and his moral blameworthiness is high. He made decisions and choices that night that led to Mr. Blyth’s death. He chose to go to the home of someone he did not know, to carry out a drug deal. He chose not to go alone, but to bring others with him. He chose a youth to be one of his “boys”. He chose to arm the youth with a lethal weapon. He chose not to leave the youth in the vehicle with his driver. He chose to take the armed youth with him to meet Mr. Blyth on the driveway.

[67] Had Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski not made the decisions and choices he did, in all likelihood Mr. Blyth would be alive today. Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski’s decisions and choices were instrumental in his companion’s killing of Mr. Blyth.

[68] After weighing all the relevant factors, and having regard to the applicable principles of sentencing, I am satisfied that a sentence of 7 years in the penitentiary is the appropriate sentence.

Conclusion

[69] Mr. Ingram-Piruzevski, please stand.

[70] I sentence you to 7 years in jail, less 16 months for pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one as 24 months, and less an additional credit of 3 months because of lockdowns. The net sentence is 4 years and 9 months in jail.

[71] I make a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life, and a forfeiture order of the cash, weapons and drugs seized.

FUERST RSJ.

Released: July 29, 2019

NOTE: As noted in court on the record, these written reasons are to be considered the official version and take precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. In the event of discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the written reasons that are to be relied upon.