Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-5-713 DATE: 20200814 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – AKWASI EDUSEI and TAVOY BROWN

Counsel: Paul Zambonini, for the Crown Richard Fedorowicz, for Akwasi Edusei James Miglin, for Tavoy Brown

HEARD: June 25, 2020

Reasons for Sentence

P.J. Monahan J.

[1] On March 10, 2020, I found Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown guilty of certain offences in connection with robberies of two convenience stores that took place in Toronto in December 2017. They are before the court today for sentencing.

Circumstances of the Offences

[2] At approximately 5:47 PM on December 12, 2017, two men robbed a convenience store located at 102 Lambton Avenue in the city of Toronto. One of the men (not Mr. Edusei) was armed with a knife and both men were masked. The man with the knife brandished it threateningly at the store clerk and stole a large quantity of lottery tickets. Mr. Edusei went behind the counter and emptied the cash register and ransacked the merchandise. The victim testified at trial and was understandably terrified by the experience. All of the events were captured on video surveillance.

[3] OLG was able to track the lottery tickets stolen from the Lambton Avenue convenience store. Approximately 90 minutes after the robbery, two males redeemed 77 of the stolen lottery tickets at the nearby Meyers convenience store. The faces of both individuals were clearly visible on various high-definition surveillance cameras located in the store. Based on the video surveillance and other evidence, I found that the individuals redeeming the tickets were Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown.

[4] At 7:15 AM on December 15, 2017, a Mac’s Convenience store located at 905 Jane St., approximately 1 km from the Lambton Avenue convenience store, was robbed by two men. One of the men, Mr. Edusei, with his face masked, went behind the counter where he emptied the cash register. The other robber took trays of lottery tickets. The victim testified at trial and recounted his fear during the experience, noting that Mr. Edusei suggested that he had a weapon under his clothing. All of the events were captured on video surveillance.

[5] At trial, Mr. Edusei was convicted of five offences: a. the December 12, 2017 robbery at the Lambton convenience store; b. disguise with intent in relation to that robbery; c. possession of property obtained by crime of a value less than $5000, namely, the stolen lottery tickets that were redeemed at Meyers convenience on December 12, 2017; d. the December 15, 2017 robbery at Mac’s convenience; and e. disguise with intent in relation to that robbery.

[6] Mr. Brown was convicted of the following offences: a. possession of property obtained by crime of the value less than $5000, namely, the stolen lottery tickets that were redeemed at Meyers convenience on December 12, 2017; and b. various court orders requiring him to remain at his residence, as well as prohibiting him from contacting or communicating with Mr. Edusei.

[7] I note that, although Mr. Brown was charged in connection with the December 15, 2017 robbery of the Mac’s convenience, I concluded that I had reasonable doubt as to whether he had participated in the robbery and acquitted him of the charges relating to that incident.

Positions of the Parties

a. Tavoy Brown

[8] The Crown and defence are jointly proposing a sentence of 90 days concurrent for the offences with respect to which Mr. Brown was convicted. Mr. Brown served a total of 60 days in pretrial custody. The parties propose that he should receive credit on a 1.5 to 1 basis for this period of pretrial custody, with the result that he should receive an effective sentence of “time served” plus one day.

a. Akwasi Edusei

[9] The Crown proposes a global sentence of four years for Mr. Edusei, less credit for 413 days of pretrial custody. [1] The Crown proposes credit of 1.5 to 1 for pretrial custody, subject to an enhanced credit of 2-for-1 for the 202 days on which Mr. Edusei was on partial or total lockdown at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

[10] Mr. Edusei proposes a sentence of “time served”, after taking into account credit for pretrial custody. Mr. Edusei proposes credit of 3 to 1 for the 202 days spent in lockdown and 1.5 to 1 for the remaining 211 days in pretrial custody.

Circumstances of the Offenders

a. Tavoy Brown

[11] Given that there is a joint position on sentence for Mr. Brown, limited information was provided with respect to his circumstances. The court was informed that Mr. Brown has an extensive criminal record. This includes convictions in February 2014 for possession of a weapon and for assault, committed while Mr. Brown was a youth. In February 2019, Mr. Brown was convicted of robbery and for the use of an imitation firearm, for which he received a global sentence of 20 months. In April 2019, he was convicted of robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of six months in custody.

b. Akwasi Edusei

[12] The court was provided with extensive information regarding Mr. Edusei’s background and circumstances, including a number of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) prepared between 2015 and 2017.

[13] Mr. Edusei was born November 14, 1999, which means that he had turned 18 approximately a month before the robberies that are the subject of this sentencing proceeding.

[14] Mr. Edusei experienced a challenging childhood. He is the youngest of three children, with his parents divorcing when he was just six years old. Although in his early years his parents shared custody, with Mr. Edusei residing with his mother during the week and living with his father on weekends, things changed when he was 10 years old. At that point, his father decided to move back to Ghana and a decision was made that Mr. Edusei would accompany him. Mr. Edusei lived in Ghana with his father for four years, from 2010 to 2014.

[15] According to the various PSRs, Mr. Edusei reported that his antisocial behaviours began to escalate at the age of 10, when he first became associated with his neighbourhood gang. He reported that he became affiliated with the gang due to connections through his brother and peers. He also reported trying marijuana for the first time at the age of 12 and, by the time he was 14, he was using marijuana multiple times a day. He reported first trying alcohol at the age of 13 when an older peer brought a bottle of rum to school. He also tried using “molly” as well as “lean”, a combination of cough syrup and sprite.

[16] Mr. Edusei’s Ontario School Record (OSR) indicates that he attended a total of nine schools while residing in Toronto, including five elementary schools and four secondary schools. (This did not include the four-year period from 2010 to 2014 during which time Mr. Edusei lived in Ghana with his father.) Although he started his grade 9 schooling at C. W. Jeffreys Collegiate Institute, soon thereafter he was expelled after allegedly bringing a knife to school. His OSR review revealed a total of 17 suspensions and 28 progressive discipline reports from October 2005 to November 2014. Reasons for these suspensions were noted as opposition to authority, uttering threats and possession of a weapon.

[17] Although he is just 20 years old, Mr. Edusei has an extensive and extremely troubling criminal record.

[18] His first offence occurred on August 14, 2014, when he was 14 years old. Mr. Edusei ordered a taxi under the name “Jamal”. When he reached his destination, he held a knife to the taxi driver’s neck. While waiting for the driver to hand over his cash, he cut a hole in the victim’s shirt. Mr. Edusei made off with $80. The incident was recorded on the taxi’s video surveillance system. Mr. Edusei was later apprehended, carrying the cellphone used to call the taxi in his pocket.

[19] The very next day (i.e. August 15, 2014), Mr. Edusei and three other youths followed an 85-year-old victim into a park. Mr. Edusei showed the victim a firearm in his waistband and demanded money. He then searched the victim’s pockets, pushed him to the ground, kicked him and took his wallet. Mr. Edusei was apprehended close to the scene with the victim’s property.

[20] On October 9, 2014, after being released on bail for the two aforementioned robberies, Mr. Edusei entered a convenience store located at 160 Chalkfarm Road with his face covered. He brandished a knife at the female employee and told her he would kill her if she did not comply with his demands. He stole cash from the register and made good his escape. He was identified through a fingerprint.

[21] Mr. Edusei was again released on bail on October 27, 2014. Approximately a week later, on November 3, 2014, two young men entered the Meyers convenience store with their faces covered. (I note that this is the same store where Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown cashed the stolen lottery tickets on December 12, 2017.) Mr. Edusei brandished a knife at the clerks and demanded money from the cash register.

[22] On November 20, 2014 he entered a convenience store located at 2202 Jane Street with his face covered. He brandished a knife at the clerk and came around the counter to the employee’s side. The clerk threw a number of objects at Mr. Edusei which caused him to flee. Video surveillance disclosed that Mr. Edusei was wearing the same clothing from the October 9, 2014 robbery where he had left his fingerprint, which resulted in his apprehension.

[23] After committing these 5 robberies in the space of just over 4 months, Mr. Edusei was detained in custody. He came before Cole J. for sentencing on April 25, 2015. Justice Cole noted that these offenses were extremely serious and, if Mr. Edusei had been an adult, he would “no doubt have got a sentence of many years in jail.” After being given credit for pretrial custody equivalent to 255 days, Mr. Edusei was sentenced to a further 60 days in open custody, 30 days community supervision, and two years’ probation.

[24] Following the completion of his sentence for these robberies, on September 18, 2015, Mr. Edusei assaulted a young man and attempted to grab his necklace. When the necklace fell to the ground, Mr. Edusei took it and ran away.

[25] On April 4, 2016, Mr. Edusei was observed entering his apartment building with an object concealed in his waist area. Mr. Edusei was arrested following a foot pursuit and a loaded Remington sawed-off shotgun was seized from his waist.

[26] Following his arrest on April 4, 2016, Mr. Edusei remained in custody until his sentencing on September 22, 2016. In the course of his sentencing, Mr. Edusei acknowledged that he had committed some serious crimes in the past and that he was remorseful for his actions. He indicated that at the time of these offenses, “I was younger, I did not have the knowledge that I have now.” He told the court that he had changed a lot and had more people guiding him so that he could make better decisions. Justice Cole credited Mr. Edusei with 8.5 months on account of his 172 days in pretrial custody, and sentenced him to a further 6 months in custody, 3 months of community supervision and 3 years of probation.

[27] Mr. Edusei was released on March 22, 2017. Two days later, Steve Medeiros was in the driveway of his residence performing repairs on his Volkswagen Jetta when he was approached by Mr. Edusei and Tavoy Brown. Both Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown were wearing balaclavas. Mr. Brown pointed an imitation firearm at him and said, “I’ll shoot you.” Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown then stole Mr. Medeiros’ car. The victim’s cell phone was in the car and the police were able to use its GPS to locate and arrest Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown. The victim and his wife apparently sold their home and moved out of Toronto as a result of the trauma they suffered.

[28] At the July 6, 2017 sentencing for this incident, Mr. Edusei told the court that he was sorry and that, “I am not only a hard worker, but also determined to change my life by continuing my education and finding a part-time job.” Justice Stribopoulos, as he then was, issued a warning to Mr. Edusei that this was his last chance in the youth justice system. Justice Stribopoulos cautioned that “after November, when you turn 18, everything changes. You are an adult and there are no more kid gloves.” Mr. Edusei was sentenced to 144 days in custody in addition to credit for pretrial custody equivalent to 156 days.

[29] Mr. Edusei completed this sentence in late November 2017. Approximately 2 weeks later, he robbed the Lambton Avenue convenience store, followed 3 days later by the robbery of the Mac’s convenience store.

[30] Following his release on bail for these two robberies, Mr. Edusei’s criminal activity has continued. On October 29, 2018, Jitin Wadhwa was in the underground parking garage of his building with his 12-year-old daughter. Mr. Edusei and Mr. Brown approached him and hit him with a metal pipe, stole his wallet and car keys and stole his car.

[31] Mr. Edusei was arrested on December 6, 2018. After pleading guilty, he came before the court for sentencing on April 25, 2019. Mr. Edusei once again told the court that he was remorseful and would be changing his ways. He noted that having been incarcerated in an adult jail had given him time to sit down and reflect on his life and he was resolved to move forward and better himself. In imposing a sentence of seven months (the equivalent of time served since his arrest on December 6, 2018), Justice Speyer noted that if Mr. Edusei was ever back before the courts on similar charges, he would be looking at a penitentiary sentence. As Justice Speyer put it, “you will graduate right to the big house… That is where you are going if you do not stop what you have been doing.”

[32] I note, for completeness, that Mr. Edusei has also been charged with robbery with a firearm and related charges in relation to his alleged involvement in the armed robbery of an illegal marijuana dispensary on June 17, 2018. Those charges are still before the courts.

[33] On May 16, 2019, the Crown was successful in a s. 524 application to revoke Mr. Edusei’s prior bails and he was ordered detained on a number of outstanding charges, including the charges before this court. He has remained in custody since that time.

[34] At the sentencing hearing that was held on June 25, 2020, Mr. Edusei expressed remorse for the two December 2017 robberies for which he is to be sentenced today. Mr. Edusei stated that he was young and foolish at the time and did not have the knowledge he has now. He told the court that while in custody he has had time to reflect and has changed his attitude and decided that this is not the way he wants to spend the rest of his life. He indicated that, upon his release, he plans on returning to Ghana, where his father is currently residing, and will attempt to make a better life for himself there.

Applicable Sentencing Principles

[35] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. Parliament has mandated that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Trial judges are required to impose a just sanction that furthers one or more of the following six objectives: i. to denounce unlawful conduct; ii. to deter the offender and others from committing offences; iii. to separate offenders from society, where necessary; iv. to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; v. to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and vi. to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledge the harm done to victims and to the community.

[36] A fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality, namely, that the sentence imposed be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Further, a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences, committed in similar circumstances; the principle that, where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment.

[37] The range of sentences available for robbery reflects the varying forms the crime may take. Absent the use of a firearm, robbery does not carry a minimum sentence, with the maximum sentence being life imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the range of sentences for robbery can vary widely from a non-custodial sentence to life imprisonment. [2]

Analysis: Tavoy Brown

[38] I accept the joint position put forward by the Crown and defence and impose a sentence of time served plus one day on Mr. Brown. Given Mr. Brown’s criminal record, particularly his prior involvement in a number of robberies with Mr. Edusei, the requirement that he not communicate with Mr. Edusei was important. He has a significant criminal record for young man. In the circumstances, I regard the sentence of 90 days to be appropriate and just.

[39] Mr. Brown shall be given credit for his period of pretrial custody between December 2017 and April 2018 on a 1.5 to 1 basis, with the result that he has a remaining sentence to be served of one day.

Analysis: Akwasi Edusei

[40] There are a number of aggravating circumstances in relation to Mr. Edusei.

[41] The first such circumstance is the fact that Mr. Edusei has an appalling record for robberies, including many armed robberies. By my count, this is the eighth robbery for which he has been convicted since August 2014, and he is facing additional charges in connection with the June 17, 2018 alleged armed robbery of the marijuana dispensary.

[42] Most of the robberies for which Mr. Edusei has previously been sentenced were committed while he was a youth. On a number of occasions, he has been explicitly warned by the sentencing judge that he will face a significantly longer sentence if he were to repeat this behaviour as an adult. These warnings have apparently gone unheeded by Mr. Edusei.

[43] On a number of occasions while being sentenced, Mr. Edusei has told the court that he has learned his lesson and intends to change his ways. What is particularly disturbing is that, notwithstanding his expressions of remorse, within days or weeks of his release back into the community he has proceeded to commit further robberies. For example, Mr. Edusei was in custody from April 5, 2016 until March 22, 2017, serving a sentence for possession of a loaded restricted firearm. Just two days after his release he and Mr. Brown committed the armed robbery of Mr. Medeiros. He was arrested and held in custody until November 27, 2017. Approximately 2 weeks after being released he robbed the Lambton Avenue and Mac’s convenience stores.

[44] In short, Mr. Edusei’s established pattern of committing armed robberies has continued for years, with the main interruptions occurring as a result of periods of incarceration.

[45] An additional aggravating circumstance is the fact that the robberies before the court involved convenience stores. The Court of Appeal has long recognized that operators of convenience stores are vulnerable to the offence of robbery and they must be protected by the imposition of appropriate sentences. [3] Thus in R. v. Lewis, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of nine years imprisonment for an armed robbery involving a loaded sawed-off shotgun, noting that the court had repeatedly stated that robberies of convenience stores will attract heavy sentences. [4] In R. v. Clarke, the Court of Appeal described the two years less a day sentence imposed as a result of the joint submission on a youthful first offender who robbed a convenience store with an imitation firearm as “plainly at the low-end of the range.” [5]

[46] In R. v. Gomez, Strathy J. (as he then was) noted the vulnerability of victims in robberies of convenience stores. In imposing a sentence of four years and nine months for an armed robbery, Strathy J. commented as follows: [6] Convenience stores are vulnerable to robbery. For the convenience of the public, they stay open at night, sometimes all night. They have minimal staff – often only one person, frequently the owner, operator, or a family member. The staff are often elderly but sometimes they are young and sometimes female.… Crimes such as this promote an atmosphere of fear. Workers in these stores live in fear that any night could be the night that a masked man with a gun walks in and demands money. The courts have an obligation to protect the hard-working people who run these stores and to deter those who exploit their vulnerability.

[47] I note that in the Lambton Avenue robbery, although Mr. Edusei was not armed, his associate had a knife which he brandished and used to threaten the female store clerk. In the robbery of the Mac’s convenience store, Mr. Edusei indicated to the store clerk that he had a weapon hidden beneath his clothing. In both cases the robbery was carried out in a manner to induce extreme fear on the part of the store clerk.

[48] A further aggravating circumstance is the fact that the December 2017 robberies were committed while masked. Being masked is a separate offence from the robbery. It is not uncommon in the case of sentencing for robbery that a companion conviction for a s. 351 (2) offence is ordered to be served concurrently, and I am prepared to proceed on that basis in respect of these two robberies. Nevertheless, both robberies were committed while masked in an attempt to defeat the stores’ video surveillance. Given that Mr. Edusei is a recidivist who has committed a number of armed robberies while masked, I find that this should be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in determining the sentence for these two robberies.

[49] Turning to mitigating circumstances, I find that the only mitigating circumstance in this case is Mr. Edusei’s youth. Notwithstanding his appalling record for armed robberies, he is still only 20 years old. While it is clear that a significant sentence is appropriate and necessary, it is also necessary and important to keep in mind his youth. Any sentence imposed must still leave open a pathway for him to move away from the pattern of criminal behaviour that he has been following on a more or less continuous basis over the past 6 years.

[50] The absence of a guilty plea is not an aggravating circumstance but, rather, reflects the absence of a mitigating circumstance.

[51] I attach little weight to the expression of remorse provided by Mr. Edusei at his sentencing hearing. His statement to the court on June 25, 2020 was very similar to statements he has made on numerous prior occasions. In those prior instances, he has proceeded to commit further offences almost immediately after completing his custodial sentences. I see no basis to distinguish his current expression of remorse from those made on previous occasions.

[52] The various PSR’s that were provided were completed some years ago. Those reports contain comments from various service providers expressing hope and even optimism that Mr. Edusei intends to turn his life around. Unfortunately, Mr. Edusei has thus far failed to act in accordance with those hopes, as demonstrated by his subsequent continued criminal activity.

[53] In considering an appropriate sentence, I have had regard to the so-called “jump principle”– namely, that sentences for the same offender for similar offences should get gradually more severe and not jump to a much more severe sentence. I would note that Mr. Edusei has already received sentences exceeding 12 months while he was a youth. He has also been told explicitly on a number of occasions that if his pattern of criminal behaviour were to continue as an adult, he should expect significantly more severe sentences.

[54] I have also considered carefully the principle of totality, namely, that the combined sentence for all of these offences must not be unduly long or harsh or exceed the offender’s overall culpability.

[55] Taking into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I find that a just and appropriate sentence, reflecting the gravity of these crimes and Mr. Edusei’s degree of responsibility, is two years for the robbery and related charges in relation to the Lambton convenience store and a further two years for the robbery and related charges in relation to the Mac’s convenience store. These sentences should be consecutive to each other since each robbery was an entirely separate offence. This results in a total global sentence of four years for both robberies and the related offences, prior to taking into account credit for pretrial custody.

Credit for Pretrial Custody

[56] As noted above, the parties are agreed that Mr. Edusei should receive a “Summers” credit [7] on the basis of 1.5 to 1 for each of the 413 days he spent in pretrial custody. I note that these 413 days do not take into account an additional 50 days of pretrial custody between the June 25, 2020 sentencing hearing and today, with the result that Mr. Edusei has now spent a total of 463 days in custody. On a 1.5 to 1 basis, this results in a credit equivalent to 695 days.

[57] The parties are also agreed that Mr. Edusei is entitled to further enhanced credit for the 202 days in which he was on partial or total lockdown. However, they differ with respect to the extent of that credit, with the Crown proposing an additional one-half day for each day spent in lockdown while Mr. Edusei submits that he should be entitled to an additional 1.5 days for each day locked down.

[58] In recent years, courts in this province have repeatedly raised concerns about prisoners in remand facilities being subject to lockdowns in their cells due to persistent staffing shortages. Recently, after a careful survey of the many judicial pronouncements calling attention to this problem, Schreck J. concluded that its persistence, despite repeated condemnations by the judiciary, compels the inescapable conclusion that these “inhumane conditions” are “a form of deliberate state misconduct”. [8]

[59] I note that in cases where enhanced credit has been provided for particularly harsh presentence conditions, evidence of the adverse effect of the locked down conditions on the individual has been provided. [9] This is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s recognition of the circumstances in which such enhanced credit should be provided. [10] Although Mr. Edusei filed records indicating the number of days on lockdown, no evidence of its actual impact on him was provided.

[60] Despite the absence of evidence regarding the specific impact of the lockdowns on Mr. Edusei, the Crown indicated a willingness to accept enhanced credit of one-half day for each day he was locked down. I would therefore grant an additional 101 days or approximately three months of credit for the period of lockdown. [11]

[61] This results in a total credit for pretrial custody of 796 days.

Disposition

[62] Mr. Brown is sentenced to 90 days on Count 3 (knowing possession of property obtained by crime), and 90 days on each of Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 (breach of conditions of a recognizance and of a probation order). The sentences on Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 3.

[63] After taking into account credit for pretrial custody, Mr. Brown has one day remaining to be served.

[64] Mr. Edusei is sentenced to two years on Count 1 (December 12, 2017 robbery of Wei Jiang), six months on count 2 (having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence), and six months on count 3 (knowing possession of property obtained by crime). The sentences on counts 2 and 3 shall be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 1.

[65] Mr. Edusei is sentenced to a further 2 years on count 8 (December 15, 2017 robbery of Abid Butt), and six months on count 10 (having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence). The sentences on counts 8 and 10 shall be served consecutively to the sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3. However, the sentence on Count 10 shall be served concurrently with the sentence on Count 8.

[66] In the result, the global sentence for both robberies is 4 years, prior to taking into account credit for pre-trial custody.

[67] The credit of 796 days on account of pretrial custody shall be applied first to the sentences on counts 1, 2 and 3. In the result, Mr. Edusei has completed his sentence in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3. This accounts for 730 days of the credit for pretrial custody, with a credit of 66 days remaining.

[68] This remaining credit shall be applied to the sentences on Counts 8 and 10, with the result that Mr. Edusei has one year and 299 days remaining to be served on count 8, and 116 days remaining to be served on Count 10.

P. J. Monahan J.

Released: August 14, 2020

Footnotes

[1] In the Crown's initial written submissions, a global sentence of 5 to 7 years was sought for Mr. Edusei. However, at the sentencing hearing, in light of prior discussions with defence counsel, Mr. Zambonini modified his position and proposed a global sentence of 4 years in custody.

[2] See the discussion of the various authorities in R. v. Asif, 2020 ONSC 1403 at para 39.

[3] See R. v. Boyle, [1985] O. J. No. 33 (C. A.).

[4] R. v. Lewis, [2009] O.J. No. 4681 (C.A.).

[5] R. v. Clarke, 2014 ONCA 296, [2014] O. J. No. 1853 (C. A.).

[6] R. v. Mikhail Gomez (July 10, 2013), quoted in R. v. John, 2016 ONSC 396 at para 24.

[7] R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26.

[8] R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188 at para 34.

[9] See, for example, R. v. Ward-Jackson, 2018 ONSC 178; R. v. Fermah, 2019 ONSC 3597.

[10] R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 at para 6.

[11] I note that it is possible that Mr. Edusei has been subject to lockdowns between June 25, 2020 and August 14, 2020. However, I have no evidence as to the extent of any such lockdowns. Absent such evidence, I see no basis upon which a proper calculation of any enhanced credit could be determined.