R. v. Leduc, 2019 ONSC 6794

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000145-0000

DATE: 20191122

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

EASTON LEDUC, SEWA LACLE and JAHMANI BROWN

Accused

G. Crisp, for the Crown

J. Frost, for Easton Leduc

L. Cohen, for Sewa Lacle

A. Alawi, for Jahmani Brown

HEARD: September 25, 2019

A.J. O’Marra J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

[1] Easton Leduc, Sewa Lacle and Jahmani Brown were found guilty of criminal organization, and conspiracy to possess firearms offences on a multi-count indictment after trial by jury on May 28, 2019. In addition, Easton Leduc was found guilty of human trafficking and assault causing bodily harm. The Crown’s case against the accused was established largely through hundreds of hours of judicially authorized intercepted telephone calls and text messages involving the offenders and others recorded between February and June 2016. They were found guilty of the following:

1. Count 1: Leduc as a member of a criminal organization instructed a person to traffic a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization between February 5 and May 2, 2016, contrary to s. 467.13 of the Criminal Code.

2. Count 4: Leduc, Lacle and Brown did conspire to possess a firearm between February 5 and June 2, 2016 for the benefit of a criminal organization, contrary to s. 467.12.

3. Count 5: Leduc and Lacle counselled another person to traffic a firearm between February 5 and June 2, 2016 for the benefit of a criminal organization, contrary to s. 467.12.

4. Count 9: Leduc did recruit another person between February 5 and June 2, 2016 to join a criminal organization, contrary to s. 467.111.

5. Count 11: Leduc and Brown conspired to possess a firearm between March 1 and March 17, 2016, contrary to s. 465(1)(c).

6. Count 13: Leduc and Lacle conspired to possess a firearm between April 2 and May 2, 2016, contrary to s. 465(1)(c).

7. Count 15: Leduc conspired with another person to possess a firearm between April 2 and April 30, 2016, contrary to s. 465(1)(c).

8. Count 17: Leduc and Brown did conspire to possess a firearm between April 2 and May 2, 2016, contrary to s. 465(1)(c).

9. Count 18: Leduc and Lacle counselled another person to traffic a firearm between February 5 and June 2, 2016, contrary to s. 464.

10. Count 24: Leduc exercised control over O.L. for the purpose of exploiting O.L. (human trafficking) between April1, 2015 to June 2, 2016, contrary to s. 279.

11. Count 25: Leduc assaulted and caused bodily harm to O.L between April 1, 2015 to June 2, 2016, contrary to s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

Overview of the Offences: Criminal Organization, Conspiracy and Counselling to Possess/Traffic Firearms.

[2] Jamal Richardson, a cousin of Easton Leduc was the leader of an unnamed criminal organization consisting largely of Glasgow family members and other associates, sometimes referred to as the Glasgows or the Family, which was committed to pimping, that is the exploitation of women and during specific periods of time to obtaining firearms. In early 2016, Richardson, sometimes called Bam or Bambino, lost two of his lieutenants, Kyle Sparks and Jamal Jackson being arrested and a “soldier”, Julian Weekes, having been murdered. Richardson needed to defend their turf to maintain control in the clubs where they pimped women. The intercepted communications indicated that he wanted them to be armed. They needed firearms to “roll heavy”, and as Leduc stated: “roll like a little mob” and “move smart this summer” in the clubs.

[3] Richardson enlisted the assistance of Leduc to obtain firearms.

[4] Leduc greatly admired Richardson and told him by text that he learned a lot from him about the “pimping game”: “I learn a lot from you, I run my game just like you . . . got it all from you.” He also indicated that anyone that he brought in to their circle, “knows I look up to you so they riding for you no matter what ‘cause you the big dog . . . always will be”.

[5] One of the people that Leduc brought in was Sewa Lacle. Initially, it was Lacle who contacted Leduc. He had learned about Leduc’s apparent success in pimping by display of his material success on a Facebook page holding wads of cash. Lacle, who at the time was living in Montreal and homeless, contacted Leduc to see if he could provide him with funds. It was at that time that Leduc started to encourage Lacle to come to Toronto, with Lacle’s then girlfriend, Amber and become a successful pimp, “there’s money in this pimping shit out here . . . its pimping, its pimping . . . that’s your bread and butter. I just want you out here with me, pimping like the same way I’m pimping, living life . . .”.

[6] When Leduc told Richardson that he was bringing someone down from Montreal Richardson gave his approval. Leduc told Lacle that Richardson had given his approval and they would have to “lock and load” if they were going downtown to the clubs. Richardson told Leduc that he did not want them to roll naked, referring to them not being unarmed.

[7] Leduc began to speak with Lacle and Brown about obtaining firearms. Leduc stated to Lacle he wanted a “nice compact small one”. He sent a weblink with a picture of a Jennings 22 to Lacle as the type he wanted. Leduc also spoke with Jordan Desmond about obtaining a firearm and also sent him the weblink of the 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. Lacle in conversation with Leduc indicated that he wanted a “nina type”. Later, he spoke with a person named Gerro in Montreal about obtaining variously a deuce deuce or a “two fif” or “tre deuce”, referring to a .22 or a .25 or .32 calibre firearm. He let Leduc know what he was doing.

[8] Brown endeavoured to put Leduc in touch with others who had access to firearms for sale.

[9] Lacle testified on the trial and confirmed that he had been seeking a firearm, but for himself to protect his business with Amber and the money she earned “dancing”, not for the others. However, given that he had a young son to think of, when in Montreal he thought better of it and decided not to buy one. On his return to Toronto, the police having learned through the intercepted calls that he had attended to obtain firearm from Gerro, arrested him. However, no firearm was found.

Leduc and the Human Trafficking Offence

[10] Leduc met O.L., then 20, in Montreal in March 2015 initially through Facebook. After a number of phone calls and conversations between them they met for dinner in a downtown Montreal restaurant. She testified that he appeared to be “nice and alright” at the time. Later, they had another evening out with Jamal Richardson where they went to a strip club.

[11] Ms. O.L. had wanted to travel to Toronto to work possibly as a bartender or dance for extra cash. Mr. Leduc told her that he was familiar with the Toronto club scene and that there were a number of clubs where women could earn extra money by dancing and serving drinks.

[12] She agreed to come to Toronto to check it out. Mr. Leduc paid for her flight. She was met at the airport by Mr. Leduc and Mr. Richardson and they drove to an address in Oakville where they stayed with Richardson and his girlfriend Rana El-Saharty. Leduc and Ms. O.L. stayed for a couple of days after which Mr. Leduc suggested they stay in a hotel in Etobicoke.

[13] She was introduced to one of the clubs, Café Atlantis in Mississauga, by another girlfriend of Richardson named Nikki De Nuzzo. She started working at the strip club and in the first week dancing she earned approximately $5,000.00 to $6,000.00. Later, Mr. Leduc became more aggressive about her doing “extras”, such as fellatio and full intercourse. He told her not to “turn down our money”.

[14] They rented a condominium apartment in Toronto in her name. The money she made paid the rent and all of the other expenses. In terms of furnishing the condominium Ms. O.L. was required to take out a number of credit cards which were used to purchase furnishings. Over time she incurred in excess of $30,000.00 in debt and Mr. Leduc would only permit her to pay the minimum. Mr. Leduc took all the money that she earned - counted it, stacked it and kept it in a shoebox and then later in a safe. He began speaking of the money that she earned as his money. Over the time they were together Mr. Leduc had no gainful employment.

[15] Ms. O.L. testified that Leduc’s character changed quite quickly. He began to threaten her. He said he would knock her teeth out. She should not play around with him or he would beat her up. On one occasion, when his cousin was at the condominium, he claimed she had disrespected him and gave her what she described as a “full on beating” in which he punched her, pulled her hair, choked her, knocked her down and kicked her. As a result of where he had punched her and kicked her during the beating, she received sore ribs painful for about a week-and-a-half and bruising to her elbow. Afterwards, she said he became quite apologetic and hugged her, but then threatened her by saying if she went to the police, “I’m not the guy you think I am”.

[16] On another occasion, while at Nikki’s condominium apartment he beat her up again by pulling her hair, slapping her face, choking her, punching and kicking her. He also threatened her by stating that he would break her teeth.

[17] In August she had been contacted by a friend from Montreal who had learned that she was in a bad situation in Toronto having been beaten and working almost every night. Her friend contacted her parents. One night she received a call from her father who said that he and her uncle were in Toronto at the airport and that he would take her back to Montreal.

[18] At that time, she left approximately $45,000.00 in Leduc’s control. Later, on her return to Toronto she had learned that he had spent all of it.

[19] In late October 2015 Mr. Leduc made contact with Ms. O.L. to try to get her to come back to Toronto. He provided a long message in which he apologized and swore that he loved her, and he would not beat her up again and that his behaviour while disgusting would change which she accepted as being sincere.

[20] On returning to Toronto he told Ms. O.L. that he had found a house in Oakville. She was required to sign the lease. She continued to work at a club in Toronto and Niagara Falls. Again, Mr. Leduc took control of all the money she made working in the clubs. From time to time the money would be taken to his grandmother’s house in Lasalle outside of Montreal where it would be stashed.

[21] There were further occasions when Mr. Leduc would threaten her, pull her hair, slap her or “discipline her” by having her perform sit ups or stand in a corner facing the wall for disrespecting him. Ms. O.L. estimated she earned in excess of $130,000.00, all of which had been under his control.

[22] On June 2, 2016 when Mr. Leduc was arrested the police also conducted a search of his grandmother’s house in Lasalle and located in excess of $80,000.00, hidden there by Leduc.

Victim Impact Statement

[23] Ms. O.L. stated that as a result of the nightmare she experienced as a victim of human trafficking and assault it changed her as a person. She was once joyful and confident, but as a result of her nightmare she has become extremely anxious and fearful all the time.

[24] She stated that between 2015 and 2016 she suffered both physical and psychological abuse by Mr. Leduc who controlled every aspect of her life from finances to where she was to be at any given time. She is still terrified to be out in public because she was conditioned and told by Leduc that someone would come and find and hurt her if she every ran off or went to the police. The fear instilled in her, she said:

…has taken a huge toll on my day-to-day life. When someone I am speaking with raises their hand even the slightest bit I automatically finch because my body instinct is to protect itself from being hit. I often recall times where the abuse was so bad, I would be in pain for weeks following an attack. I would become fixated on the many times I was threatened and assaulted during that period of time. When I recall these moments, I go into a trance, unable to focus on whatever I am doing in that moment. These memories will never go away.”

[25] Her greatest fear is that she will not be protected from what he promised would be done to her if she ever turned on him or shared my story.

[26] Ms. O.L. spoke of the toll it has taken on her mental health as well as her physical health. She spoke of having received bruised ribs, arms, legs, hand marks on her face and having headaches for days from the abuse. She indicated that in March 2018 she had two seizures due to high stress and lack of sleep which now requires her to take medication twice a day and which prevented her from operating a motor vehicle.

[27] She addressed the financial loss and damage done to her due to having to declare bankruptcy because she was left with $35,000.00 in debt on the credit cards. She is no longer allowed to have a bank account with RBC because her credit cards were left unpaid for so long. She is unable to rent vehicles from Avis or Budget being banned due to outstanding payments and damage to the cars resulting from the police raids. She claimed to have lost about $90,000.00 she was forced to work for, seized in the police raids.

[28] Mr. Jamal Richardson who had been named in the indictment pleaded guilty prior to trial to the offences of instructing the trafficking of firearms to benefit a criminal organization, possession of a loaded firearm and fraud over $5,000.00 for which he received a nine-year period of imprisonment.

The Offenders

1. Easton Leduc

[29] Easton Leduc was 25 to 26 years old at the time the offences were committed. He has a criminal record which consists of the following:

1. September 19, 2008 Montreal - possession of a scheduled 1 substance, $500.00 fine and failed to comply with recognizance, $100.00 fine.

2. March 23, 2010 Montreal - assault causing bodily harm x2 and conspiracy to commit assault with a weapon, sentence: 12 months custody each to be served concurrently, possession of a weapons dangerous, 3 months custody concurrent and 2 years probation, obstruct peace officer, 7 days custody, failed to comply with recognizance, 1-day custody.

3. July 18, 2011 Montreal – robbery, 18 months custody, use imitation firearm in commission of offence, and possession of a loaded firearm, sentence: 1-year custody plus 356 days custody on each count concurrent (pre-trial credit of 12 months and 4 days) plus s. 109 Order.

4. October 20, 2014 Peel – possession of a loaded firearm, 142 days custody plus pre-trial custody credit of 13 months and 8 days.

5. September 27, 2018 Montreal – criminal harassment, 9 months custody and 3 years probation.

6. January 10, 2019 Montreal – take auto without consent, 3 months custody and possession of identification documents in another’s name, 3 months custody concurrent.

[30] Mr. Leduc grew up in the care of his mother Joanne and had little involvement with his father until his father was released from custody in the late 1990s from serving a sentence of similar offences as Mr. Leduc has committed.

[31] Mr. Leduc has a younger brother J.P. and three half sisters who live in Nova Scotia. He maintains a close relationship with his mother, grandmother who cared for him in his teens after he was told to leave his mother’s home when he started committing offences. His mother has remained supportive of him who wrote a letter within which she states: “my son knows what he has done is wrong, he regrets doing what he did, and wants to go forward with his life. But before you make your decision could you please consider that when he will come out he will be living with me. And I will be helping him to find a job. I am asking if at all possible when you give him his sentence to consider giving him a chance to life . . . because he is really and truly a good person. Just made some wrong choices.”

[32] In terms of education he completed grade 8 and then attempted some adult education and has some grade 9 credits. In his teens he was very active in football and other sports, but subsequently when he was first arrested and told to leave his mother’s home his life began a downward spiral. He indicated that his father became a significant influence in his life although one would question the beneficial effects of such a role model.

[33] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing Mr. Leduc was asked if he wished to address the court. He indicated that he was embarrassed to having listened to his voice on the intercepted communications and the realization of the big mistake that he had made in life. He apologized to O.L. for the pain and stress he had caused her. He feels that he has changed and that he is now a better man and he accepts responsibility for the offences for which he was found guilty. He disputed the Crown’s submission that he had no respect for women stating that he does for his mother and grandmother.

[34] I have difficulty accepting Mr. Leduc’s expression of remorse for the offences committed particularly in respect of O.L. and his declared respect for women, as being sincere.

[35] I note that he committed the offence of criminal harassment between November 17, 2017 and March 30, 2018 while he was detained on these matters at the Maplehurst Correctional and Detention Centre. He was found guilty of the offence on July 19, 2018. He was sentenced on September 27, 2018 to 9 months incarceration, and his statutory release was March 27, 2019.

[36] The circumstances were set out in the judgment dated July 19, 2018. The complainant Ms. A.G. made contact with Mr. Leduc while he was in custody and soon thereafter, they developed a relationship. However, as time passed, the complainant testified Mr. Leduc became more aggressive, controlling and manipulative. He would call her many times a day and, on many occasions, he would lose control and became aggressive towards her, he threatened to fix her, to put her in her place and to “check her”. The judge stated:

…it is clear from the evidence that the accused conveyed threats to the complainant on many occasions during the arguments that they had. It is also proven that the accused conveyed those threats and behaved aggressively towards the complainant in a repeated manner during the period mentioned . . . it is clear that the conduct of the accused caused her to fear for her safety…

…he conveyed threats that were clear, explicit and unequivocal. He indirectly tried to communicate with her through third parties when it was clear that she did not want to speak with him . . . The complainant’s fears were reasonable. (See Exhibit No. 5)

[37] Having committed the offence while in custody pending charges that involved human trafficking, while I do not consider it an aggravating factor, it does diminish any genuineness of his expression of remorse and rehabilitative potential.

2. Sewa Lacle

[38] Mr. Lacle is 32 years of age. He was born in Togo. Counsel advised that his father was a politician and at some point, during Mr. Lacle’s youth his father was arrested and imprisoned. His mother had to flee Togo when the accused was two years of age. Between the ages of two and eight he was transferred between relatives and friends initially in Togo and then in Senegal. He came to Canada at the age of eight and lived initially with his mother and two brothers.

[39] Mr. Lacle finished grade 8 and thereafter he had little schooling and worked at a number of jobs. His last employment between 2014 and 2015 was at Tim Hortons, however he was let go by a new owner and was thereafter unemployed. He made contact again with Mr. Leduc, whom he had known growing up because of having seen Mr. Leduc’s apparent display of wealth and success on his Facebook page. He was motivated to do the same by the encouragement of Mr. Leduc and as a result set upon the course of action which led him to the offences committed.

[40] Mr. Lacle has a lengthy criminal record which consists of the following:

1. November 24, 2006 Montreal – caused bodily harm by criminal negligence x2, possession of a loaded firearm x2, mischief damage to property, trafficking a schedule 1 substance, possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking, sentence: 23 months custody and pre-trial credit of 9 months 15 days plus 3 years probation.

2. March 9, 2009 Valleyfield, Quebec – obstruct peace officer, possession of a scheduled 2 substance, assault, failed to comply with recognizance, failed to comply with probation order, sentence: 40 days custody on each count concurrent and one-year probation.

3. September 1, 2009 Montreal – careless storage of a weapon, prohibitive device or ammunition, possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to prohibition order, sentence: 152 days custody on each charge and 18 months probation. Failed to comply with probation and failed to comply with recognizance x2, sentence: 30 days custody each charge, failed to comply recognizance, 15 days custody consecutive and pre-trial credit of 18 days.

4. December 7, 2009 Thunder Bay – failed to comply with recognizance, 30 days custody.

5. July 22, 2010 Montreal: utter threats x2, 1-day custody and pre-trial credit of 3 months.

6. June 22, 2011 Ottawa: possession of a loaded firearm, 53 months custody and s. 109 Order plus pre-trial credit, 210 days, possession of a scheduled 1 substance for the purpose trafficking, 2 years custody concurrent.

7. September 29, 2011 Montreal – possession of a schedule 1 substance and possession of a schedule 2 substance – 3 months custody on each count, failed to comply with probation, 15 days custody.

[41] At the conclusion of the sentence hearing Mr. Lacle was given the opportunity to address the court, at which time he stated that the past three years he has been on a journey of self-realization for which he has discerned his life’s purpose. It is to contribute positively to his community by speaking to youth to try to help them from making the mistakes that he had made in life.

[42] Mr. Lacle spoke at length from a prepared text in which he expressed deep regret and takes responsibility for his actions.

[43] He has used his time while incarcerated to productive ends having participated in a number of programs, such as Amadeusz, which has assisted him toward his educational goals by preparing to write the GED exam and earn his high school equivalency certificate from the Ministry of Education. He has also been working with a case worker to develop an individualized plan of support to be implemented on his release to provide continuing support through his transition to the community. The manager of the program wrote that he has shown that “he is a determined, capable and engaged participant”. He has provided a number of certificates of completion of programs, such as maintaining employment, an educational session for men, supportive relationships, change as a choice: substance use rehabilitative group, and substance use.

[44] His mother writes that after speaking with him many times she believes he fully understands what he has done and that he takes responsibility for his actions. She believes he has changed having dedicated his life to God. As a family they will gladly welcome him back home so he can focus on his new life and build a relationship with his son whom he has not seen since Lacle has been in custody.

[45] His brother writes: “He showed me a different side of him which surprised me as well as my family on how he changed, his level of knowledge when it comes to the bible and how he sees life now is completely different from before, and I believe he will be a role model, maybe spokesman to educate the young upcoming youths”.

[46] Mr. Lacle’s expressions of remorse and regret, his willingness to receive support and desire to effect a positive outcome appears both sincere and genuine, with rehabilitative potential.

3. Jahmani Brown

[47] Mr. Brown is 31 years old who was born and raised in Montreal. He has strong family support from his mother, a retired registered nurse and his sister, her husband and his brother. He has been living with his brother at his home in Montreal while on bail. Mr. Brown completed high school and has been employed, most recently as a warehouse clerk for UPS. He has recently been accepted into a plumbing and heating program at the Verdun Adult and Career Centre. He had been in a partnership with the mother of his son for a little over two years. The year following the birth of his son they separated, however they have maintained a positive relationship and he continues to provide support. He has a criminal record which consists of the following:

1. July 12, 2011 Montreal – failed to comply with recognizance and failed to comply with an undertaking, $150.00 for each offence.

2. January 15, 2014 Montreal – failed to comply with probation, suspended sentence and one-year probation.

[48] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing Mr. Brown was given the opportunity to address the court at which time he apologized for having committed the crimes. He indicated that it had been a hardship on him not being able to see his son.

Relevant Sentencing Principles

[49] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the 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 objectives. Those objectives include denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and others who might be similarly inclined, separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

[50] Further, the sanction imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The total sentence should not be unduly harsh, and the court shall also take into consideration that the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

i) Criminal Organization Offences

[51] Each of the offenders are to be sentenced on criminal organization offences and firearm related offences. Mr. Leduc is to be sentenced for human trafficking and assault causing bodily harm. In terms of criminal organization sentences it was noted in Regina v. Beauchamp 2015 ONCA 260 at para. 260 citing Regina v. Mastop, 2013 BCCA 494 at para. 46:

That the overall objective of criminal organization legislation is protect society from the wide-ranging effects, violent or otherwise, of criminals who work together as a group, as well as to prevent and deter organization criminal activities. Offenders who regularly commit crimes together are a greater menace to society than an individual offender working alone.

[52] The court recognized that protection of the public, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objectives for s. 467 offences. Further, the achievement of these objectives depends on the prospect of significant penal sanctions for organized criminal conduct.

[53] First, it was noted that Parliament underscored the seriousness of s. 467 offences by providing under s. 467.14 that sentences for offences under s. 467.11, 467.111 (now enacted), s. 467.12 or 467.13 shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the offender for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the offender is subject at the time the s. 467 sentence is imposed.

[54] Second, under s. 743.6(1.2) of the Criminal Code “a presumption in favour of parole ineligibility is triggered when the offender receives a sentence of two years or more imprisonment for a s. 467 conviction wherein the offender must serve half of his or her sentence or ten years, whichever is less before release on full parole unless the court orders otherwise.

[55] Third, by reason of s. 718.2(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code evidence that an offence was committed for the benefit of or at the direction of or an association with a criminal organization is a statutory aggravating factor on sentencing.

ii) Conspiracy and Firearm Related Offences

[56] With respect to firearm related offences, as noted in Regina v. Marakah 2015 ONSC 1576 at para. 20 our courts have stressed repeatedly that sentences imposed for firearm offences must further the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the public.

[57] In Regina v. Danvers, (2005) 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 199 CCC 3rd 490 (OCA) a murder case involving the use of a firearm Armstrong J.A. stated at para. 78 the following:

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 firearms in the Greater Toronto Area is a cause for major concern in the community and must be addressed.

[58] It was noted by K. L. Campbell J. in Regina v. Farah 2016 ONSC 5000 at para. 31-34 that conspiracy to traffic firearms calls for the imposition of penitentiary sentences that stress denunciation and deterrence in order to properly protect the public. Further that weapon trafficking for a criminal organization is even more serious creating dangerous situations and a cascading risk to the public as a result of the proliferation of gun crimes. Such offences must be denounced emphatically, and exemplary sentences imposed.

iii) Human Trafficking

[59] In terms of human trafficking offences as noted in Regina v. Lopez 2018 ONSC 4749 at para. 53, general deterrence, denunciation and specific deterrence are the paramount sentencing considerations in dealing with such offences. The courts have generally accepted that where the accused has coerced a woman into becoming or remaining a prostitute and has exercised significant degree of control over her activities, a sentence of four to five years has been typically imposed. However, in more aggravating circumstances longer sentences have been imposed and upheld. Section 279.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code came into force in December 2014, which introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment for the offence of human trafficking an adult. I bear in mind that a minimum mandatory sentence is the floor and not the ceiling, which in the case of human trafficking under s. 279.01 is 14 years.

[60] In this instance, Mr. Leduc is a self-declared pimp. Pimps are exploitative and parasitic living off the earnings of women that they control through a variety of tactics such as emotional blackmail, verbal abuse, threats of violence, violence and brutality. They are “cruel, pernicious and exploitive evil”. In Regina v. A.A., [2012] OJ No. 6256 citing a reference made in Regina v. Glasgow, [1993] OJ No. 1502 at para. 3: pimps “are the lepers of both the underworld and the decent world. The money they leach from others attracts no tax. Pimps directly contribute to human degradation, that is why they are perceived by those who know both in the criminal society as well as in the decent world as being on the level with child molesters”.

[61] In Regina v. Tang, 1997 ABCA 174 at para. 11 and in Regina v. Miller 1997 Carswell Ont. 3524 at para. 39 the court set out a number of factors to consider in structuring an appropriate sentence for human trafficking. The enumerated factors I consider applicable in this case are:

1. the degree of coercion or control exercised by the offender on the victim’s activities;

2. the amount of money received by the offender and the extent to which the offender allowed his victim to retain her earnings;

3. the age of the victim;

4. the duration of the exploitative conduct;

5. the degree of violence if any apart from that inherent in the offender’s parasitic activities;

6. the effect on the victim of the exploitation; and

7. attempts by the offender to prevent a victim from leaving his control.

Totality Principle

[62] In Beauchamp, supra at para. 295 the Court of Appeal cites Regina v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339 at para. 18 in which the court explained the operation of the totality principle:

In short, a combined sentence must not be unduly long or harsh in the sense that its impact simply exceeds the gravity of the offences in question or the overall culpability of the offender. The overall length of the custodial period imposed must still relate to and reflect the variety of sentencing goals, including denunciation, deterrence (specific and general), rehabilitation, the need to separate offenders from society where necessary, and the general imperative of promoting respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society: Criminal Code, s. 718. In this regard, the authorities recognize that where the ultimate effect of the combined sentences is to deprive the offender of any hope of release or rehabilitation, the functional value of these sentencing principles meets the point of diminishing returns.

[63] Given the multiplicity of serious offences for which sentences must be imposed, I must consider the totality principle to ensure that the combined sentence imposed for each offender is not unduly long or harsh, but in the aggregate just and appropriate.

Position of the Parties

1. Easton Leduc

[64] The Crown’s position as to the appropriate sentence for Mr. Leduc with respect to the offences of instruct trafficking a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.13, conspiring to possess a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization, s. 467.12, recruiting a person to join a criminal organization, s. 467.111, the four counts of conspiracy to possess firearms, s. 465, human trafficking, s. 279.01 and assault causing bodily harm, s. 267 would be in the range of 22 – 24 years. However, the Crown submits in consideration of the totality principle the range of incarceration imposed should be 17 – 19 years with a number of ancillary orders for DNA sampling, firearms prohibition for life, increased parole in eligibility, forfeiture, fine in lieu of restitution, a victim fine surcharge and non-contact with Ms. O.L.

[65] The specifics as to the suggested ranges for each offence suggested by the Crown are set out in a chart attached as Appendix A.

[66] The defence’s position on behalf of Mr. Leduc is that an appropriate sentence following the totality principle would be in the range of 10 – 11 years incarceration with parole in eligibility applied only to the period of sentence imposed for the criminal organization offences pursuant to s. 467.14, not with respect to the human trafficking and assault offences.

[67] Counsel agrees with the Crown’s position that count 5, counselling to traffic a firearm to benefit a criminal organization and count 18, counselling to traffic a firearm should be conditionally stayed as established on the same circumstances as count 1, instructing the trafficking of a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.13. Further, counsel agrees that the sentences imposed for conspiracy to possess a firearm, counts 11, 13, 15 and 17 should be served concurrent to each other, but consecutively to the criminal organization offences and human trafficking offence. With respect to the offence of recruiting a person to join a criminal organization pursuant to s. 467.111, counsel submits that notwithstanding its inclusion in s. 467.14 it should not be served consecutively to all other offences, as there is no predicate offence, as there is for the other criminal organization offences cited.

[68] Counsel for Mr. Leduc submits the following as the appropriate disposition per offence:

1. Count 1instruct trafficking a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.13 - 3 years incarceration.

2. Count 4 conspiring to possess a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.12 - 3 years incarceration concurrent to count 1.

3. Count 9 recruit a person to join a criminal organization, s. 467.111 - 1-year incarceration concurrent to counts 1 and 4.

4. Counts 11, 13, 15 and 17 conspiring to possess firearms, s. 465 - 3 years incarceration concurrent to each other and consecutive to counts 1, 4 and 9.

5. Count 24 human trafficking, s. 279.01, 4 to 5 years incarceration consecutive to counts 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17.

6. Count 25 assault causing bodily harm, s. 267(b), 1-year incarceration concurrent to count 24.

[69] Counsel submits that the total period of incarceration that would be appropriate for Mr. Leduc would be 10 to 11 years imprisonment. A sentence of 17 to 19 years imprisonment as suggested by the Crown would violate the totality principle. It would be a crushing sentence and suggest that the offender is irredeemable.

[70] As for the ancillary orders, counsel submits that there is no dispute that a forfeiture order be made with respect to the money seized by the police to be provided to Ms. O.L. As to a fine in lieu of forfeiture the amount claimed by Ms. O.L. to had been dissipated by Mr. Leduc is at best an estimate. Moreover, Ms. O.L. did not make a request in her victim impact statement.

2. Sewa Lacle

[71] The Crown’s position with respect to Mr. Lacle is that a sentence in the range of 8 to10 years incarceration would be appropriate. The Crown submits the following should be imposed:

1. Count 4 Conspiring to possess a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.12 – 3 to 4 years incarceration.

2. Count 5 Counselling to traffic a firearm to benefit a criminal organization, s. 467.12 – 3 to 4 years incarceration to be served concurrent to count 4.

3. Count 13 Conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 465 – 5 to 6 years incarceration to be served consecutively to counts 4 and 5.

4. Count18: Counselling to traffic a firearm, s. 464 – 4 years incarceration to be served concurrently to count 13 and consecutively to counts 4 and 5.

[72] The total sentence would be a in the range of 8 to10 years.

[73] The Crown seeks ancillary orders for a DNA sample, a weapons prohibition for life, increased parole in eligibility for all offences over 2 years incarceration, forfeiture order and victim fine surcharge.

[74] The defence’s position is that a period of incarceration in the range of 7 to 8 years less enhanced credit for harsh presentence custody conditions in the range of 3 years 4 months.

3. Jahmani Brown

[75] The Crown’s position with respect to Mr. Brown is the following:

1. Count 4 Conspiring to possess a firearm to benefit criminal organization, s. 467.12, 1 to 2 years incarceration.

2. Counts 11 and 17 Conspiring to possess firearms, s. 465, 3 years incarceration to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to count 4.

[76] The total period of incarceration would be between 4 and 5 years.

[77] Further the Crown seeks ancillary orders of DNA sampling, a firearms and weapon prohibition for life. It does not seek increased parole in eligibility for non-criminal organization offences.

[78] It is the position of the defence that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Brown would be 6 to 12 months with respect to count 4, s. 467.12 and for counts 11 and 17, 6 to 12 months each concurrent but consecutive to count 4, less presentence credit for 19 days in detention and more than 1200 days on a house arrest bail release to remain in his residence with the exception of attending for medical treatment, later varied to permit attendance for employment.

Sentences

Firearm offences

[79] Mr. Leduc sought firearms, not just in one instance, but he made arrangements over several intercepted communications with several individuals including Mr. Lacle. Mr. Leduc sought the firearms for the benefit of a criminal organization, to “roll like a mob” when they went to clubs where they conducted the business of pimping. He enlisted and conspired with others to do so.

[80] I recognize that Mr. Leduc was not found to have been in possession of a firearm, but the intercepted communications make clear that he was making serious inquiries and negotiating the price of handguns for their criminal activities.

[81] I take into account that he has a criminal record for having possessed loaded firearms as an aggravating factor.

[82] For the offences of conspiring to possess firearms, counts 11, 13, 15 and 17 Mr. Leduc shall be sentenced to a period of 4 years incarceration on each count to be served concurrent to each other.

Criminal Organization Offences

[83] Pursuant to s. 467.14(1) a sentence imposed on a person for having committed an offence under the criminal organization offences, s. 467.11, 467.111, 467.12 and 467.13 shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed. In Beauchamp supra at para. 300 the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that while there is no established range of sentence for criminal organization offences provincial appellate courts have upheld sentences in the order of 3 years, as was the result in that case.

[84] In this case, while Mr. Leduc’s criminal conduct of instructing to traffic firearms and conspiring to possess firearms for the benefit of the criminal organization is worthy of the range as suggested by the Crown in order to give effect to the totality principle in arriving at the appropriate global sentence, a sentence of 3 years shall be imposed for count 1, instructing the trafficking of a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization. Further, he shall be sentenced to a concurrent term of 3 years for count 4, conspiring with others to possess firearms and to benefit a criminal organization, both of which shall be served consecutively to counts 11, 13, 15, 17 conspiracy to possess firearms.

[85] The Crown seeks a further sentence to be imposed to be served consecutively to the criminal organization offences for count 9, that is the recruiting offence to benefit a criminal organization. However, the criminal organization offences in counts 1 and 4 are not predicate offences to count 9 and as such the sentence imposed for count 9 shall be served concurrent to counts 1 and 4. Mr. Leduc shall be sentenced to 2 years incarceration to be served concurrently with counts 1 and 4 but consecutive to counts 11, 13, 15 and 17.

Leduc - Human Trafficking and Assault Bodily Harm

[86] In considering the human trafficking offence committed by Mr. Leduc I take into account that he exerted physical and psychological control over Ms. O.L. to manipulate and exploit her. He used violence and threats of violence to prevent her from leaving or contact with the police. He took possession of all the money that she made in the course of her activities.

[87] I consider the effect that he had on her psychological and physical well-being as described by her in the victim impact statement: “ . . . I am terrified to be out in public because I was conditioned and told someone would come and find and hurt me if I ever ran off or went to the police”. I note, there were remarkably similar findings made in the criminal harassment conviction committed during his incarceration pending his trial on these matters. He was found to have made clear, explicit and unequivocal threats and used third parties to contact the complainant which caused her to feel trapped, intimated and scared.

[88] I consider, as well Mr. Leduc’s own admissions in the intercepted communications that he was banned from three clubs for having beaten up other women. He spoke at length with Mr. Lacle about how to be an effective pimp in manipulating and controlling the “bitches”.

[89] I consider the comments of Charron J. in the Regina v. Angelillo, 2006 SCC 55, [2006] 2 SCR 728 at para. 32 that such evidence assists in establishing the offender’s character and reputation or risk of re-offending for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence for the “offence of which he has been convicted”. His admissions as well as his conviction for criminal harassment assists in determining Mr. Leduc’s true character and his prospects for rehabilitation.

[90] His display of remorse in his statement to the court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing and those of his to mother suggest he is a changed man, ring hollow and fall far short of providing mitigation. His acceptance of responsibility reflects more the overwhelming nature of the evidence against him than contrition.

[91] Section 279.01 provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of four years. However, the minimum sentence is the floor, not the ceiling and reserved for the “best offenders”, those who would be deserving of mitigation by a demonstration of true remorse and contrition, which in this instance, in my view, is absent.

[92] I consider Mr. Leduc’s criminal record, which includes previous crimes of violence as an aggravated factor.

[93] A sentence in the upper range as suggested by defence counsel, that is 5 years imprisonment shall be imposed for the human trafficking offence, s. 279.01. It shall be served consecutively to all other counts. With respect to the assault causing bodily harm offence, count 25 Mr. Leduc shall be sentenced to 2 years incarceration to be served concurrent with count 24, the human trafficking offence and consecutively to all other counts.

[94] In the result, Mr. Leduc shall be sentenced to a total period of incarceration of 12 years.

Parole Ineligibility

[95] Under s. 743.6(1.2) where an offender receives a sentence of 2 years imprisonment or more on conviction of offences under four sections, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12 and 467.13 the court shall order that the offender must serve half of the sentence, or 10 years, whichever is less before the offender may be released on full parole.

[96] Under s. 743.6(1.1) where an offender receives a sentence of 2 years or more on a criminal organization offence other than offences under ss. 467.1, 467.111, 467.12 or 467.13 the court may order the offender to serve half of the sentence, or 10 years, whichever is less.

[97] The offences under counts 1 and 4 fall clearly within the parameters of s. 743.6(1.2) requiring that the offender serve at least half of the sentence imposed prior to full parole eligibility.

[98] In considering the conspiracy to possess firearm offences it is clear from the intercepted communications that the acquisition of firearms by Mr. Leduc was not only at the request of Jamal Richardson, the head of the family and organization but for himself as well so that when they went out about their business of pimping they would “roll naked”, which would be necessary to preserve their position in the criminal world of pimping. I am satisfied that counts 11, 13, 15 and 17, conspiring to possess firearms was in relation to a criminal organization and falls within the definition of under s. 2 of criminal organization, which incudes a conspiracy in relation to an offence under ss. 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13.

[99] With respect to the human trafficking offence and assault causing bodily harm there is no evidence that Ms. O.L. was involved with anyone else other than Mr. Leduc, notwithstanding his involvement with the criminal organization in the business of pimping. All of the control, manipulation and exploitation of Ms. O.L. was by Mr. Leduc, even though there was early peripheral support by Mr. Richardson having Mr. Leduc and Ms. O.L. stay in his residence and that of his girlfriend. It is in my view insufficient to conclude that the offence for which Mr. Leduc was convicted was an offence within the definition of criminal organization, s. 2(a), a serious offence “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.

[100] In considering the paramount principles of denunciation, specific and general deterrence with rehabilitation of the offender being subordinate to these paramount principles I order that Mr. Leduc is to serve half of his total sentence for counts 1 and 4, the criminal organization offences and counts 11, 13, 15 and 17, conspiring to obtain possession of firearms before he is eligible for full parole.

Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture

[101] The Crown seeks a restitution order in the amount of $45,000.00 to Ms. O.L. for the monies she earned but spent by Mr. Leduc prior to her return to him in October 2015. Also, the Crown seeks a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount with any funds paid to the credit of the restitution order.

[102] Section 462.37(1) indicates that on conviction of a designated offence, which human trafficking is by the definition set out in s. 462.3(1), on application of the Attorney General the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property is proceeds of crime and the designated offence was committed in relation to that property the court shall order the property forfeited to Her Majesty to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the law.

[103] Here, the two criteria have been met. Human trafficking is a designated offence and the funds kept by Mr. Leduc, which he obtained by exploiting Ms. O.L., were proceeds of crime.

[104] In Regina v. Angelis, 2016 ONCA 675 at para. 32 Watt J.A. observed that the objective of Part XII.2, in particular the forfeiture provisions, is to deprive offenders in criminal organization of proceeds in crime and thereby to deter future crimes: see also Regina v. Lavigne, 2006 SCC 10, [2006] 1 SCR 392 at para. 16.

[105] Where the two criteria have been met the court shall order forfeiture. However, if the property cannot be made subject to an order then pursuant to s. 462.37(3) the court may order the offender to pay a fine if the property or any part of or interest in the property (a), cannot on the exercise of due diligence, be located. Section 462.37(4)(iii) states, where a court orders an offender to pay a fine pursuant to subsection (3) the court shall impose, in default of payment of that fine a term of imprisonment of not less than 12 months and not exceeding 18 months where the amount of the fine exceeds $20,000.00 but does not exceed $50,000.00.

[106] As noted in Angelis supra at para. 81 it is well settled that ability to pay may not be considered either in deciding to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture or in determining the amount of the fine: Lavigne at paras. 1, 48 and 52. However, ability to pay is a factor to be considered in determining the time within which the fine is to be paid.

[107] Here, the order shall be made that there will be a fine in the amount $45,000.00. In default of payment of the fine Mr. Leduc shall be imprisoned for a term of 18 months consecutive to any other term of imprisonment in accordance with s. 462.37(4)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

[108] In this instance, Mr. Leduc shall be given 2 years to make payment of the fine after release from incarceration on the offences committed: see Regina v. Wu 2003 SCC 73, [2003] 3 SCR 530 and Lavigne at para. 52.

[109] I am not prepared to make the restitution order requested by the Crown as it was not sought by Ms. O.L. The money seized by the police in LaSalle is ordered forfeited, payable to Ms. O.L.

Pretrial Custody and Enhanced Credits

[110] The Supreme Court of Canada in Regina. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 at para. 70 stated that in determining the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody the courts must assign credit on a quantitative basis to account for the loss of early release and parole during pre-sentence detention, and to also account on a qualitative basis for the relative harshness of the detention conditions. However, it was noted in Regina. v. Abdullahi, 2015 ONCA 549 at paras. 18-19 that the quantitative basis that would normally attract credit on a 1.5 to 1 basis is not automatic if in the circumstances of a specific offender renders the early release or parole unlikely then the trial judge can adjust or even refuse enhanced credit.

[111] In Regina v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 the court recognized that a trial judge has discretion to provide enhanced credit beyond Summers credit where the defence establishes particularly harsh detention conditions that have had an impact on the accused.

[112] Counsel submits, Mr. Leduc should receive enhanced credit for pre-trial custody from his arrest in June 2, 2016 less the 9 months he served for the criminal harassment offence. Counsel estimates that the pre-trial custody to sentencing is 1088 days. Quantitatively, on a 1.5 to 1 basis for loss of early release and parole Mr. Leduc should be credited with having served the equivalent of 4 years and 3 months.

[113] In addition, Mr. Leduc seeks enhanced credit for the 180 days of full and partial lockdown while in detention, and 34 days in segregation for security and safety reasons. Qualitatively, for the difficult conditions imposed in detention he should be credited for the equivalent of an additional 4 months.

[114] The position of the Crown is that Mr. Leduc should not receive any enhanced credit, under Summers leaving the total number of days in custody at 1088. Alternatively, he should be granted enhanced credit only from arrest, June 2, 2016 to the date he began to criminally harass another female, November 1, 2017, (517 days at 1.5-1 = 775 days) and there should be no enhanced credit thereafter to the date of sentencing in this matter (571 days at 1-1). Further, there should be no Duncan credit given the absence of evidence as to the impact of the lockdowns on Mr. Leduc.

[115] In this instance, there shall be no credit for the time spent serving his sentence for criminal harassment from September 27, 2018 to March 27, 2019. For the time period of the offence of criminal harassment took place, November 1, 2017 to March 30, 2018 – 151 days, credit will be given on a 1-1 basis pursuant to s. 719 (3) of the Criminal Code. I am prepared to grant enhanced credit for the rest of the time Mr. Leduc spent in detention from arrest June 2, 2016 to sentencing, 937 days on a 1.5 -1 basis, (1406 days enhanced credit). Also, I am prepared to grant an additional 3 months credit for the 180 days he was subject to lockdowns and 34 days of segregation. The total credit shall be 4 years and 6 months, (54 months).

[116] In the result, Mr. Leduc is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment less presentence custody credit of 4 years and 6 months, (54 months) for a further period of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment to serve.

2. Sewa Lacle

[117] Mr. Lacle, although not a member of the criminal organization, I am satisfied that he was an associate of it and that he was specifically recruited by Mr. Leduc to assist him to obtain firearms for the benefit of the criminal organization. Further, he conspired with others to do so.

[118] It was clear from the verdicts reached by the jury in this case that Mr. Lacle’s declaration was not accepted or raise a reasonable doubt that he sought a firearm only for himself.

[119] Mr. Lacle has a criminal record that includes a number of counts that involve possession of a loaded firearm.

[120] I accept in mitigation Mr. Lacle’s comments that he has found a new purpose in life and that he has made productive use of his time by engagement in programs that will assist him to lead a more pro-social life on release.

[121] Mr. Lacle shall be sentenced to 4 years incarceration on count 13, conspiracy to possess a firearm and 4 years on count 18, counselling to traffic a firearm to be served concurrent with count 13. On count 4, conspiring to possess a firearm to the benefit of a criminal organization, s. 467.12 he shall be sentenced to a period of three years incarceration to be served consecutive to counts 13 and 18. On count 5, counselling to traffic a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization contrary to s. 467.12 he shall be sentenced to a period of 3 years incarceration to be served concurrent to count 4, but consecutive to counts 13 and 18.

[122] The total sentence for Mr. Lacle shall be 7 years incarceration.

Pretrial Custody and Enhanced Credits

[123] The total time in pre-trial and pre-sentence custody from arrest June 3, 2016 to sentencing November 22, 2019 is 1267 days, the equivalent of 3 years and 6 months. He experienced 383 days of full and partial lockdowns while in detention. Mr. Lacle provided an affidavit in which he stated:

While I appreciate that any detention will (sic) its relative consequence on a person’s well being, I believe that my detention at the Toronto South (Detention Centre) has been excessively harsh. I believe that the amount of time that I have been in lock down has caused me severe psychological and emotional issues. I believe I have suffered with anxiety and depression and have a hard time dealing with emotional issues. During the times that I have been in lockdown I have spent multiple days without access to showers, telephones and basic amenities. I have been shut out from communicating with my family including my mother and son. I have severe panic attacks at the though of prolonged periods of lockdowns.

[124] Mr. Lacle was attacked while in detention by a mentally unwell inmate for which he required medical attention and stitches.

[125] Mr. Lacle shall be credited with 5 years and 3 months for the 1276 days of pre-trial detention on a 1.5 -1 basis and a further credit of 3 months for the harsh detention conditions and impact of the numerous lockdowns. The total credit shall be 5 years, 6 months.

[126] In the result, Mr. Lacle shall be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, less 5 years, 6 months for a further period of 1 ½ years (18 months) imprisonment to serve.

3. Jahmani Brown

[127] Based on the intercepted communications Mr. Brown acted more as a go-between for Mr. Leduc and others in the pursuit of acquiring firearms. There is no evidence that he was a member or associate of the criminal organization to which Mr. Leduc belonged. I accept Mr. Brown’s statement accepting responsibility and expression of remorse for his involvement in mitigation. However, he was involved in the pursuit of lethal weapons for which the courts have repeatedly stated there must be exemplary sentences imposed in order to deter others from like conduct.

[128] In this instance I sentence Mr. Brown to 2 years imprisonment on count 11, conspiracy to possess a firearm, and on count 17, conspiracy to possess a firearm, 2 years imprisonment to be served concurrent to count 11. On count 4, conspiracy to possess a firearm for the benefit of a criminal organization, I sentence Mr. Brown to 6 months incarceration to be served consecutively with counts 11 and 17. The total sentence imposed is 2½ years imprisonment.

Pretrial Custody and Enhanced Credits

[129] Counsel submits that Mr. Brown should receive pre-trial custody credit for 19 days in detention on a 1.5:1 basis and enhanced credit for having been on bail since June 20, 2016 for 1,257 days until the sentence date of November 22, 2019 with a house arrest condition, which initially provided an exception for medical treatment only, but later varied to permit absences for employment.

[130] Counsel submits that as a result of the strict house arrest bail conditions that Mr. Brown should be given some pre-trial/sentencing credit on a basis of 4 days of house arrest to 1-day custody.

[131] With respect to enhanced credit for house arrest conditions, the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555, stated that while stringent pre-sentence bail conditions, especially house arrest is a relevant mitigating factor the amount of credit will depend on a number of factors such as the length of time spent on house arrest, the stringency of the conditions, the impact on the offender’s liberty, the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity. Further, the onus is on the offender to establish those factors on a balance of probabilities. The amount of credit to be given for time spent on house arrest is within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no formula that the judge is required to apply.

[132] In this instance, Mr. Brown was released from detention 19 days after his arrest, June 2, 2016. He shall receive pre-trial custody credit of 1 month. Even though he has continued with his employment and he has been able to maintain regular contact with his 7-year-old child and former partner, I accept that there was a significant curtailment of his liberty due to the house arrest bail conditions imposed thereby worthy of enhanced credit. Mr. Brown shall be credited with a further 11 months for almost 3½ years on bail and 1-month pretrial custody. The total presentence credit is 12 months.

[133] In the result, Mr. Brown is sentenced to 2½ years incarceration, less 12 months pre-sentence credit for a further period of 1½ years (18 months) imprisonment to serve.

Ancillary Orders

[134] In addition, each offender shall be subject to an order for the collection of a DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 and a firearms and other weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Summary of Sentences Imposed

Easton Leduc

Counts 11, 13, 15 and 17: Conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 465(1)(c) – 4 years on each count to be served concurrent to each other.

Count 1: Criminal organization – instruct trafficking firearm, s. 467.13 – 3 years consecutive to counts 11, 13, 15, and 17.

Count 4: Criminal organization – conspiracy to possess firearms, s. 467.12 – 3 years concurrent to count 1, but consecutive to counts 11, 13, 15, and 17.

Count 9: Criminal organization – recruitment, s. 467.111 – 2 years concurrent to counts 1 and 4 but consecutive to counts 11, 13, 15, and 17.

Count 24: Human trafficking, s. 279.01 - 5 years to be served consecutively to all other counts

Count 25: Assault causing bodily harm, s. 267(b) - 2 years concurrent to count 24 and consecutive to all counts other counts

Total Sentence: 12 years’ incarceration.

Pre-sentence custody credits, s. 719(3.1) – 4 years and 6 months (54 months, Summers/Duncan) – 1 total sentence: 12 years’ incarceration less 4 years 6 months PSC – 7½ years.

1. Order to serve ½ of total sentence for counts 1 and 4 (s. 743.6(1.2)), and ½ of totals for counts 11, 13, 15 and 17 (s. 743.6(1.1)) before eligible for parole.

2. Order to pay $45,000.00 in lieu of forfeiture (s. 462.37(3)), with 2 years to pay, or 18 months incarceration in default, s. 462.37(4)(iii).

3. Forfeiture order for the money seized in LaSalle Quebec payable to Ms. O.L.

4. An order that there shall be no contact directly or indirectly with Ms. O.L.

5. DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.051 and firearm prohibition for life, s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

Sewa Lacle

Count 13: Conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 465(1)(c) – 4 years

Count 18: Counselling to possess a firearm, s. 464 – 4 years concurrent to count 13

Count 4: Criminal organization, conspiracy to possess firearm, s. 467.12 – 3 years consecutive to counts 13 and 18

Count 5: Criminal organization, counselling to traffic a firearm, s. 467.12 – 3 years concurrent to count 4 and consecutive to counts 13 and 18

Pre-sentence custody credit: 5 years and 6 months, s. 719(3.1) – (Summers and Duncan).

1. Total sentence: 7 years’ incarceration less 5 years and 6 months. PSC - 1 year and 6 months to serve.

2. DNA sample ordered: s. 487.051 and firearms prohibition for life, s. 109.

Jahmani Brown

Count 11: Conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 465(1)(c) – 2 years

Count 17: Conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 465(1)(c) – 2 years concurrent to count 11

Count 4: Criminal organization, conspiracy to possess a firearm, s. 467.12 – 6 months consecutive to counts 11 and 17

Pre-sentence credit – 12 months (Downes)

1. Total sentence: 2 years and 6 months incarceration less 12 months pre-sentence credit for a sentence of 1 year and 6 months (18 months).

2. DNA sample ordered, s. 487.051 and firearms prohibition for life, s. 109.

A.J. O’Marra J.

Released: November 22, 2019

Appendix A

CHART FOR LEDUC

COUNT/CHARGE

SENTENCE

CONCURRENT/CONSECUTIVE

Ct 1 – crim org - instruct – traffic firearm – s 467.13

6-7 yrs lowered to 5-6 yrs given totality

Concurrent to Ct 4, consecutive to all other counts.

Ct 4 – crim org – commission – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 467.12

3-4 yrs

TOTAL = 5-6 yrs

Concurrent to Ct 1.

TOTAL of 5-6 yrs consecutive to all remaining counts (9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 25).

*Ct 5 – crim org – commission – counselling to traffic firearm – s 467.12

*Conditional Stay

*Given Ct 1

Ct 9 – crim org – recruit – s 467.111

3 yrs lowered to 2 yrs given totality

TOTAL = 2 yrs

Consecutive to all remaining counts (1, 4, 11,

13, 15, 17, 24, 25).

Ct 11 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

6-7 yrs lowered to 5 yrs given totality

Concurrent to cts 13, 15, 17 in light of totality.

Ct 13 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

6-7 yrs lowered to 5 yrs given totality

Concurrent to cts 11, 15, 17 in light of totality.

Ct 15 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

6-7 yrs lowered to 5 yrs given totality

Concurrent to cts 11, 13, 17 in light of totality.

Concurrent to cts 11, 13, 15 in light of totality.

Ct 17 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

6-7 yrs lowered to 5 yrs given totality

TOTAL = 5 yrs

TOTAL of 5 yrs consecutive to all remaining counts (1, 4, 9, 24, 25).

*Ct 18 – counselling to traffic firearm – s 464

*Conditional Stay

*Given Ct 1

Ct 24 – human trafficking of O.L. – s. 279.01

7 years decreased to 5-6 yrs given totality

Concurrent to Ct 25, consecutive to all others. Note: mandatory minimum of 4 years.

Ct 25 – ABH re O.L. – s.267

2 yrs (note has prior ABHs)

TOTAL = 5-6 yrs

Concurrent to Ct 24.

TOTAL of 5-6 yrs consecutive to all remaining counts (1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17).

TOTAL

17-19 years

CHART FOR LACLE

COUNT/CHARGE

SENTENCE

CONCURRENT/CONSECUTIVE/KIENAPPLE

Ct 4 – crim org – commission – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 467.12

3-4 yrs

Concurrent with Ct 5, consecutive to all others.

Ct 5 – crim org – commission – counselling to traffic firearm – s 467.12

3-4 yrs

TOTAL = 3-4 yrs

Concurrent to Ct 4.

TOTAL of 3-4 yrs consecutive to cts 13 and 18.

Ct 13 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

5-6 yrs

Concurrent to count 18, consecutive to counts 4 and 5.

Ct 18 – counselling to traffic firearm – s 464

4 yrs (note max is 5 yrs pursuant to s 464/463)

TOTAL = 5-6 yrs

Concurrent to count 13, consecutive to counts 4 and 5.

TOTAL of 5-6 yrs consecutive to cts 4 and 5.

TOTAL

8-10 yrs

CHART FOR BROWN

COUNT/CHARGE

SENTENCE

CONCURRENT/CONSECUTIVE/KIENAPPLE

Ct 4 – crim org – commission – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 467.12

1-2 yrs

Consecutive to all others

Ct 11 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

3 yrs

Concurrent to ct 17, consecutive to ct 4.

Ct 17 – conspiracy to possess firearm – s 465

3 yrs

Total = 3 years

Concurrent to ct 11, consecutive to ct 4.

TOTAL of 3 yrs consecutive to count 4.

TOTAL

4-5 years

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000145-0000

DATE: 20191122

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

EASTON LEDUC, SEWA LACLE, JAHMANI BROWN AND JUSTIN BELLINGER

Applicants

REASONS FOR sentence

A.J. O’Marra J.

Released: November 22, 2019