COURT FILE NO.: YC-18-1045
DATE: 2019 11 01
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
C. Nadler and A. Cornelius, Counsel for the Crown
Applicant
- and -
A.D (A Young Person)
U. Kancharla, Counsel for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: October 18, 2019
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
LEMAY J
[1] A.D. is a young offender. On June 17^th^, 2019, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter in the death of Kamar McIntosh. Mr. McIntosh was shot multiple times within approximately a minute after entering the washroom in a fast food restaurant in Mississauga.
[2] The shooter or shooters were either Mr. Shamar Meredith or Mr. Thulani Chizanga. A.D. was not present in the washroom when Mr. McIntosh was shot to death. However, he had been in the fast food restaurant with Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga before Mr. McIntosh arrived. A.D. was outside the washroom when the shooting occurred. He then fled the scene of the shooting and assisted Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga in also fleeing the scene in a taxicab.
[3] The Crown does not seek to have A.D. sentenced as an adult. As a result, I am required to apply the sentencing regime under the Youth Criminal Justice Act ("YCJA"). Given A.D.'s age (sixteen) at the time of the offence, the Crown seeks the maximum sentence, which is three years. The Crown also seeks a probation order for the maximum time period, which is two years
[4] Counsel for the offender seeks a sentence of time served, which would be a sentence of two years and just less than six months. Further, defence counsel seeks credit for the time spent in custody at a ratio of more than 1 to 1. Defence counsel does not seriously oppose a probation order for the time period that the Crown is seeking one.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the fit and proper sentence in this case is two years and nine months, which is to be served in closed custody. In addition, a probationary period of two years will be served under the conditions set out in these reasons.
[6] In the sections that follow, I will address the following points:
a) The relevant facts including the responsibility of the offender for the offence;
b) The principles applicable on sentencing;
c) The circumstances of the offender;
d) Whether the offender should be given credit for pre-sentence custody, and if so how much credit should be given;
e) The mitigating and aggravating factors;
f) The fit and proper sentence.
The Relevant Facts
[7] In this case, I have the jury's finding of guilt. I do not, however, have the reasoning for the jury's conclusion. There are a number of facts that the jury could have found in order to reach their verdict. As a result, I must have regard to the principles in R. v. Ferguson (2008 SCC 6, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, 2008 S.C.C. 6).
[8] Applying the principles in Ferguson means that I am only required to make those factual determinations that are necessary to determine the appropriate sentence. I am bound to the express and implied factual implications of the jury's verdict. However, where the factual implications of a jury's verdict are ambiguous the sentencing judge must come to his own conclusions.
[9] I also note that, if a fact is aggravating on sentence, then it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. R. v Gardiner 1982 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368.
[10] With those principles in mind, I will set out the relevant facts. It is helpful to divide the evidence into two halves, being before and after the shooting.
a) Before the Shooting
[11] On April 27^th^, 2019, in the hour or hour and a half before the shooting took place, the offender had a number of telephone calls back and forth with both Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga. Some of these phone calls were very short, and a few lasted between 30 seconds and a minute.
[12] The offender met up with Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga at the fast food restaurant just before 3:00 pm. This is clear from the videotape evidence that was filed at trial. This evidence included videotapes from the fast food restaurant as well as surrounding businesses. In terms of the times on the videotapes, I acknowledge that there were some differences between the actual time and the times shown on the videotape. I am only using the times in the fast food videotapes in this summary, however, so I will use the times on the screens.
[13] The offender remained in the restaurant up until Mr. McIntosh was killed. He is visible on-screen for almost the entire time.
[14] Mr. Chizanga went into the washroom approximately fifteen (15) minutes prior to Mr. McIntosh arriving at the restaurant (3:11 p.m.) and remained in the washroom until after Mr. McIntosh arrived in the washroom and was shot. Mr. Chizanga fled the washroom immediately after the shooting. The only reasonable inference from this evidence is that Mr. Chizanga was waiting in the washroom for Mr. McIntosh to arrive.
[15] Mr. Meredith was in and out of the restaurant on a couple of occasions between 3:00 p.m. and the shooting, which took place at approximately 3:25 pm. On the first occasion, Mr. Meredith left at approximately 3:03 p.m. and returned at 3:10 p.m. On the second occasion, Mr. Meredith left at 3:13 p.m. and returned at 3:19 p.m. On the third occasion, at 3:23, Mr. Meredith leaves the restaurant and the offender goes into the washroom. Approximately a minute later, Mr. Meredith comes back into the restaurant and goes directly to the washroom. The offender leaves the washroom approximately fifteen seconds later.
[16] The video evidence establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Meredith was carrying a gun when he left the washroom and fled the restaurant. I am also convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the gun would have been obvious to the offender before Mr. Meredith went into the washroom and before Mr. McIntosh was killed. I reach that conclusion for four reasons:
a) The gun was quite large and would have been difficult to conceal.
b) Mr. Meredith's posture on the videotape was awkward after he came back into the restaurant at approximately 3:19 pm. Mr. Meredith never fully bent his legs, either. These facts suggest that Mr. Meredith was concealing something large, such as a gun.
c) The offender was involved in the transaction that was going to take place in the washroom, so would likely have been aware that Mr. Meredith was armed even if it was not obvious to a casual observer or on the videotape.
d) The offender was very close to Mr. Meredith for several minutes after he arrived back with the concealed gun, so the offender would have had an opportunity to observe the gun.
[17] Within a minute of Mr. Meredith re-entering the restaurant the final time and going to the washroom, Mr. McIntosh enters the restaurant and goes directly to the washroom. He hesitates before entering, but enters the washroom.
[18] The staff of the restaurant testified that they heard the sounds of a fight coming from the washroom immediately after Mr. McIntosh entered the washroom. The staff testified that those sounds continued for approximately 45 seconds. However, on the video evidence it is clear that the time elapsed between the moment that Mr. McIntosh enters the washroom and the moment that Messrs. Chizanga and Meredith flee the washroom is only 43 seconds.
[19] During this time period, an unidentified person, who I understood to be a friend of Mr. McIntosh's comes into the restaurant and goes to the washroom. The offender immediately follows this person to the washroom door and waits approximately five seconds until this person comes back out. The offender then follows this person to the door and watches out the window after he leaves. It is clear from the videotape and other evidence that the offender was monitoring this other person.
[20] Then, it is clear on the video screen from the reaction of the patrons that shots are fired. The offender leaves the restaurant quickly, followed by Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga. The offender and Mr. Meredith leave by the same door, while Mr. Chizanga leaves by a different door.
[21] Mr. McIntosh died from 27 gunshot wounds, approximately fifteen of which were in his torso area. It is clear that there was at least one gun in the washroom at the time that Mr. McIntosh was killed. There may have been two guns, but it is not necessary for me to resolve that question.
[22] The question that this evidence all raises is why were Mr. Chizanga and Mr. Meredith waiting in the washroom for Mr. McIntosh? Counsel for the offender argued at trial that this could have been a drug deal gone wrong. I reject this assertion.
[23] In my view, the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chizanga and Mr. Meredith intended to assault Mr. McIntosh in the washroom. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons:
a) The length of the transaction was very short. It was less than a minute between when Mr. McIntosh entered the washroom and Mr. Chizanga and Mr. Meredith fled. Any drug deal would have had to go wrong very quickly.
b) Mr. Chizanga hiding out in the washroom for fifteen minutes before Mr. McIntosh's arrival is more consistent with a planned assault than a drug deal. A planned drug deal would likely not have required Mr. Chizanga to lie in wait in the washroom. It would likely have been a more casual encounter.
c) The offender going in to the washroom immediately before Mr. McIntosh arrives is also more consistent with a planned assault than a drug deal. The most logical inference from the fact that the offender went to the washroom at exactly the moment when Mr. Meredith left is that the offender was going to warn Mr. Chizanga that things were going to start happening.
d) In my view, the offender's role is to ensure that Mr. Chizanga is prepared for the arrival of Mr. McIntosh. If it was just a drug deal then Mr. Meredith could have told Mr. Chizanga that Mr. McIntosh was coming. The extra time was important in order to prepare for something else, which I infer is an assault.
e) Given the timing I have set out above, a fight would have had to ensue immediately after Mr. McIntosh arrived in the washroom. There simply wasn't time for a drug deal to take place in a minute.
f) Finally, Mr. McIntosh's reaction when he walked into the washroom area was to stop suddenly, suggesting that he was startled. He appears to have seen something that he was not expecting, which supports the conclusion that this was not a drug deal gone wrong. If Mr. McIntosh had been going to a drug deal and the drug deal went wrong after he arrived, he would not have acted surprised at the start of the encounter.
[24] This brings me squarely to the question of what the offender knew about what was going to happen in the washroom. The jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender:
a) Knew that Mr. Meredith and/or Mr. Chizanga were going to engage in an unlawful and objectively dangerous act when Mr. McIntosh entered the washroom.
b) Aided them in carrying that unlawful act out.
[25] I have concluded that the offender was aware that a gun was in Mr. Meredith's possession prior to the meeting in the washroom. I also conclude that the offender knew that the parties were going to assault Mr. McIntosh at a minimum and that he aided them in carrying out that assault by acting as a lookout and monitoring the other people who went to the washroom area while Mr. McIntosh was being assaulted and shot.
b) After the Shooting
[26] After Mr. McIntosh was shot, the offender fled the restaurant and went to a nearby nail salon. He waited out of sight in the nail salon and called a taxi cab. He got into this taxi cab and originally directed the taxi driver to take him home.
[27] The offender then called both Mr. Chizanga and Mr. Meredith. Immediately after these calls, the offender had the taxi driver backtrack and pick Mr. Chizanga up about a block away from the fast food restaurant.
[28] The taxi subsequently picked Mr. Meredith up, and drove all three of them to the offender's house. The offender paid the taxi driver and removed Mr. Meredith's coat from the taxi. That coat was found in the offender's possession when he was arrested.
[29] The gun (or guns) from the shooting were not, as far as I am aware, recovered. It is clear that Mr. Meredith left the fast food restaurant with a gun. The question is what happened to that gun? I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender received the gun or disposed of it. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons:
a) There is no clear evidence that the gun was in the taxi.
b) There was a significant gap (several minutes) between when Mr. Meredith left the restaurant and when he arrived in the taxicab.
c) There was no clear evidence that the gun was removed from the taxi by the offender or anyone else.
[30] The offender was arrested on May 3^rd^, 2017 and has been in custody at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre ("RMYC") since that time. His total time in custody is just less than two years and six months.
The Principles Applicable on Sentencing
[31] As A.D. is a young offender, the principles that apply for sentencing are set out in section 38 of the YCJA. These provisions are different from the sentencing provisions for adults. In particular, the principles of general and specific deterrence, which are central for adult offenders, are not relevant to the sentencing of young offenders (see R. v. B.W.P. 2006 SCC 27, 2006 S.C.C. 27 and R. v. P.C. 2013 ONSC 1293 at para. 4).
[32] Section 38 sets out a regime for the sentencing of young offenders. A detailed discussion of this regime is set out in R. v. D.L. (No. 3) (2005 ONCJ 386). There are several principles in subsection 2 that are important for my consideration. They include the fact that the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the sentence must not result in punishment that is greater than the punishment an adult would face. Finally, it is clear in reading these principles that the focus is on rehabilitation and responsibility.
[33] Then, section 38(3) sets out the following factors that a youth justice court is to take into account in sentencing a young offender:
(3) In determining a young sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account
(a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence;
(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable;
(c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the community;
(d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence;
(e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and
(f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section. 2012, c. 1, s. 172.
[34] I have already set out the facts above. These facts will show the degree of participation of the offender in this case, which is significant in my view. The offender was aware that Mr. Meredith was armed, and that Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga planned to assault Mr. McIntosh. The offender aided them in this assault by acting as a lookout. The offender also aided them in this assault by escaping from the scene.
[35] There is also the harm done to the victim in this case. Mr. McIntosh was killed and the offender was involved in Mr. McIntosh's death. The effect of this killing on Mr. McIntosh's family has been expressed by his mother, who read a victim impact statement in Court.
[36] That statement reads, in part:
Kamar grew up to be a loving, compassionate, athletic and respectful young man. He would do things like hold his great grandmother's hand as she crossed the street, prepare his little sisters lunch and place note on it with her name and a big heart. Whenever I was upset he would give me his charming smile and hug me. Kamar would say "Mom, I love you. You and Olivia are my everything". Every time I think about the relationship he had with his father, I cry. They were best friends. Inseparable.
Now we are left with emptiness, when my son died a part of me died as well.
[37] The offender's crime has had a significant effect on Mr. McIntosh's family, and I must be mindful of that as I fashion the sentence in this case.
The Circumstances of the Offender
[38] At the time of the offence, the offender was approximately sixteen and a half years old. He has recently turned nineteen.
[39] In preparing these reasons, I had the advantage of both a Pre-Sentence Report and a Psychological Assessment Report. I have reviewed both of those reports in coming to my conclusions.
[40] The offender was born in Canada to parents who had come here from Romania. He has an older sister. His parents separated when he was two years old. I understand that the reason for the separation was that the offender's father was emotionally and physically abusive towards the offender's mother.
[41] From the time of separation to when the offender was incarcerated, he lived with his mother and his older sister in Peel Region. His mother worked as a Personal Support Worker, and often worked overtime to support the family. The offender's mother and sister remain supportive of the offender.
[42] The offender had some contact with his father up until the age of thirteen. However, that contact has mostly ceased, although the offender continues to have some contact with his father's family. I understand that the offender's father has substance abuse issues, which also contributed to the separation.
[43] The offender was attending school up until the time of his arrest for this offence. However, the offender began to have both behavioural and academic troubles in school starting in middle school. The offender acknowledges that he did not try hard in school, and he had some absenteeism in Grade 7 and 8.
[44] In late 2012, which would have been during Grade 6, the offender was assessed and found to have some impairments that necessitated an Individual Education Plan ("IEP"). This IEP required some accommodations in the classroom, as well as in coursework.
[45] The offender had problems in high school as well. These included several suspensions from school for inappropriate behavior as well as generally poor academic performance. In addition, the offender began to use marijuana regularly, and was a daily user of marijuana at the time of the offence. However, his school performance had begun to improve as a result of a transfer to a different school in the fall before the offence.
[46] The psychological testing that I was provided with supports the conclusions that were reached by the school board with respect to the IEP. This testing also outlines concerns that the offender is susceptible to influence from peers. The psychological testing concluded that, based on his personality profile, the offender presented a high risk for future involvement in criminal activity. The psychological testing noted that the offender would benefit from continued placement in a highly structured environment.
[47] As part of the PSR, the Peel Police were contacted and advised that they had concerns about the offender's involvement in youth gangs in his area. The Peel Police were also concerned about the offender's potential to become involved again in gang related issues.
[48] Since the offence, the offender has been in secure custody in RMYC. He has been attending classes on a regular basis, and has obtained numerous certifications, as well as completing 20.5 of the 30 credits he needs to graduate high school.
[49] The offender has generally been well-behaved during his incarceration and has generally been at the highest level of behaviour. However, some incidents of concern were reported:
a) On more than one occasion it has been suspected (or proven) that the offender had contraband marijuana in RMYC.
b) There was an altercation approximately a year ago which involved a number of youths in the centre. This altercation led to a twenty (20) day suspension from school for all of the youths.
c) The offender was involved in a couple of incidents of fighting that took place over his time in RMYC.
[50] The offender played sports up until Grade 8 or 9, and while incarcerated also participated in the sports programs that were on offer at RMYC.
[51] Finally, for the purposes of this sentencing, the parties were agreed that the offender did not have a record that I needed to consider.
Should the Offender Be Given Credit for Pre-Sentence Custody? If so, How Much Credit?
[52] The key question is how much credit should be given for pre-sentence custody. The Crown argues that credit should be given on a 1:1 ratio. Defence counsel argues that credit should be given on a 1.5:1 ratio.
[53] The defence argument is premised on the fact that the offender has been in pre-sentence custody, and the conditions are different from those he would be subject to post-sentence. It is also based on the fact that there is a pattern of giving credit on a 1.5:1 ratio. In that regard, there is some mention of that approach in R v. D.L., supra.
[54] The problem with defence counsel's argument is that it does not accord with the facts of this case. In this case, the offender had access to significant programs to assist in his rehabilitation and continue his education. These programs will be the same both before and after sentencing.
[55] In R. v. D.S. (2008 ONCA 740), the Court of Appeal considered section 38(3)(d) of the YCJA (reproduced above at para 33). That provision requires the Court to consider the time spent by the young offender in pre-sentence custody. In that case, Gillese J.A. stated (at para 24):
- Section 38(3) of the YCJA requires the youth justice court to take into account "the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence". The question of how pre-sentence custody should be credited, pursuant to s.38(3)(d), was considered in B.(T.). Justice Lang, on behalf of this court, answered the question by considering first the two reasons why adult offenders are often credited with more than one day for each day of pre-sentence custody. First, adult detention centres lack the resources of correctional facilities and their conditions are generally more onerous than those in correctional facilities. Second, adult offenders are eligible for statutory release and parole, but, in determining eligibility, pre-sentence custody is not taken into account.
[56] The Court went on to consider whether credit of less than 1:1 should be given by sentencing judges in cases of young offenders. The Court, relying on R. v. E.L. ((2006) 210 O.A.C. 124 (C.A.)) stated that less than 1:1 credit should only be given in exceptional cases. It is worth noting that both of these Court of Appeal decisions were decided after R. v. D.L..
[57] In this case, I am of the view that the reasoning of Gillese J.A. is applicable to this case. The justifications for providing adult offenders with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody are not present in this case. There is no statutory release available for the offender in this case, and the resources of the facility where the offender was detained are significantly better than an adult detention facility. There is no justification in this case for any enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.
[58] The Crown does not seek any reduction from a 1:1 ratio of the credit for the pre-sentence custody time for the offender. I agree with this position, as I see nothing that would amount to an "exceptional case" justifying such a reduction.
[59] The offender is entitled to credit for his pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1:1.
The Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
a) Mitigating Factors
[60] One of the mitigating factors that can arise is remorse. In this case, the pre-sentence report contains the following passage:
[The offender] advised that he feels regret for the victim's family, that the loss was too random, that he was still too young, and that the family will not get him back. He said he has thought about how his mother would feel in the same situation. He also expressed awareness of how his actions affected his mother, stating she has been stressed, sad, and concerned. [The offender] states he did not know the victim but knew of him.
[61] However, the psychological report also contains the following passage:
Regarding the incident, [the offender] said he was at the "wrong place, wrong time." He explained that, on the day of the incident, he was breaching a bail condition for a Robbery charge by being without his surety at a restaurant with friends who were involved in drug trafficking. The shooting occurred in the washroom after he went back to the restaurant. [The offender] fled the premises when he heard the gunshot because he did not want to get involved. He called his friend to found out what happened and his friend asked him to fetch him from the restaurant. [The offender] complied with his request and picked up his friend. [The offender] believes his concern for his friend was a contributing factor to him being found guilty. [The offender] thinks he should have been acquitted. If he could go back and change anything about the incident, [the offender] advised that he would have gone home after hearing the gunshot rather than checking up to see if his friends were okay. [The offender] acknowledged also that he "felt bad for this guy's family and that he got shot. His life's taken away."
[62] Given my conclusions about the seriousness of the offence in this case and the fact that the offender played a significant role in the offence, I do not view these statements as amounting to an expression of remorse. I acknowledge that these statements demonstrate that the offender understands the significance of what happened, but he does not acknowledge his role in what happened.
[63] The other mitigating factors that exist on this record that have not already been discussed are as follows:
a) The offender does not have any pre-existing record.
b) The offender has had a difficult family life.
c) There is some potential in the record for the offender to be able to rehabilitate himself.
d) There was no finding that the offender provided the weapon.
b) The Aggravating Factors
[64] There is a question I raised with counsel about whether the offender's failure to remain at the scene of the shooting and assist the deceased should be considered as an aggravating factor. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this is an aggravating factor. As counsel for the offender correctly points out, almost everyone else in the restaurant (including staff and patrons) fled the scene at the same time as the offender did.
[65] In this case, the aggravating factors that I have not discussed elsewhere are:
a) The seriousness of the offence. Mr. McIntosh lost his life, and his family lost Mr. McIntosh's comfort and support, as a result of this crime.
b) The fact that the offender assisted Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga both before and after the shooting.
The Fit and Proper Sentence
[66] There are two halves to determining the fit and proper sentence. First, the period of incarceration. Second, the probationary period and the terms of probation. In considering both halves, I am mindful that I am sentencing a young offender who was sixteen (16) years old at the time of the offences.
[67] I start with the period of incarceration. The parties provided me with a number of cases in terms of sentencing. The R. v. D.L. supra, decision was a case where the Court did not provide a further custodial sentence to a young offender who had killed his sister and been found guilty of manslaughter. It is worth noting that the judge in that case found that there was pre-sentence custody as well as onerous bail conditions. This decision is distinguishable from the case before me in two respects. First, in D.L., the accused demonstrated considerable remorse for his crime. Second, the incident that led to the death of D.L.'s sister was as a result of provocation and occurred over a very short period of time. In this case, the offender was involved in a prolonged and considered plan to assault the late Mr. McIntosh.
[68] This brings me to the decision in R. v. P.C., supra. In that decision, Molloy J. of this Court was faced with a young offender who had been involved in the brutal beating of another person that he did not know. In that case, P.C. did not demonstrate any remorse and claimed to have done nothing wrong. As a result, Molloy J. imposed a sentence of two years and six months.
[69] This case is also distinguishable from the facts before me. In P.C., the offender had participated in the beating because he had been threatened by the instigator of the beating, and that P.C. feared the instigator. In this case, there is no evidence that the offender was pressured or threatened in any way in committing this offence.
[70] As a result, I am of the view that the sentence in this case should be modestly higher than the sentence imposed in P.C. supra. This brings me to the Crown's position that I should impose the maximum sentence. I also reject that submission for two reasons:
a) Although the crime is very significant, there are still cases in which a young offender convicted of manslaughter could have engaged in worse conduct than what took place here and/or the young offender could have had a significant criminal record. As a result, the maximum penalty is not appropriate, as it should generally be reserved for the worst cases and the worst offenders.
b) There are some mitigating factors in this case. In particular, the fact that the young offender has rehabilitative potential, and the fact that he has had a difficult family life are factors that should weigh against the imposition of the maximum sentence.
[71] I conclude that the appropriate sentence in this case is a total of two years and nine months, less the time already served.
[72] The accused has been incarcerated for just less than two years and six months. He is required to serve an additional three months and two days. This sentence is to be served in closed custody and, if possible, at RMYC. The offender's incarceration will end on February 4^th^, 2020.
[73] A DNA order is to issue under section 487.055 of the Criminal Code.
[74] Then, there is the period of probation. Section 42(k) of the YCJA mandates a maximum probationary period of two years, which is the period that the Crown is seeking. Defence counsel does not seriously dispute that a two year probationary period is appropriate, and I agree that the accused should be subject to probation for a period of two years after the conclusion of his custodial sentence.
[75] During that time period, the accused will be required to adhere to the following conditions:
a) Report as directed to his probation officer.
b) Reside in a location approved by his probation officer, and not change his residence without prior approval of his probation officer.
c) Provide proof of his residence, employment and educational pursuits as requested by his probation officer.
d) Attend school and/or work on a full time basis, or as approved in advance by his probation officer.
e) Continue all counselling, therapeutic, educational recreational and/or integration activities and/or programs as directed by his probation officer, and provide releases so that his probation officer can obtain any necessary reports.
f) Not possess any weapons within the meaning of section 51(2) of the YCJA. Given the concerns about the risk to re-offend set out in the psychological assessment, this prohibition is for life.
g) Refrain from any contact with either Shamar Meredith or Thulani Chazinga.
h) The accused is not to have any contact with Mr. McIntosh's family, except in relation to any outstanding civil lawsuits that may proceed.
___________________________
LEMAY J
Released: November 1, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: YC-18-1045
DATE: 2019 11 01
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Applicant
- and -
A.D (A Young Person)
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEMAY J
Released: November 1, 2019