COURT FILE NO.: 15-5098
DATE: 20210112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
-and –
EUNICE ILUNGA, SAFI MAHINJA and SANDRINE TOMBA-KALEMA
Offenders
James Cavanagh and Louise Tansey, for the Crown
Paolo Giancaterino, for Eunice Ilunga
Sandrine Tomba-Kalema, not appearing
Ronald Guertin, for Safi Mahinja
HEARD: December 7-8, 11-14, 18-21 of 2017; March 14, 26-27, July 20 and August 1st, 7 of 2018; March 14, May 7, July 8 of 2019
REASONS FOR sentence
R. Smith, J.
Overview
[1] Eunice Ilunga (“Ilunga”) was convicted of a series of offences against H.M., namely kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter, assault, sexual assault and for distributing an intimate image of H.M. on July 3, 2015. Ilunga was the principal offender but she was aided by Safia Mahinja (“Mahinja”) and Sandrine Tomba-Kalema (“Tomba-Kalema”) in committing several of these offences. Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema were convicted of kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter and the sexual assault of H.M. at Mahinja’s home.
Circumstances of Offences
[2] Ilunga suspected that her partner R was having an affair with H.M.. She took a key from R’s keychain and then drove to H.M.’s apartment building with Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema. They waited for someone to exit and entered the apartment building without obtaining H.M.’s consent. They then took the elevator to the 16th floor and Ilunga used the key to open the door and entered H.M.’s apartment without her consent.
[3] Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema followed Ilunga into H.M.’s apartment without her consent and assisted Ilunga to confine H.M. in her washroom. Ilunga forced H.M. to sit on her toilet and pulled down H.M.’s bathrobe exposing her breasts. During this time Ilunga interrogated H.M., trying to get her to confess to having a sexual relationship with her partner. Ilunga took a video of H.M. sitting on her toilet with her breasts exposed and threatened to publish the video online if H.M. didn’t confess. Ilunga also struck H.M. on the face with her hand and threw cold water on her exposed body while she sat on her toilet. Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema stood at the bathroom door and assisted Ilunga to confine H.M. and Tomba-Kalema criticized H.M.’s alleged conduct.
[4] When H.M. was allowed to exit her washroom, she attempted to run and jump off her balcony on the 16th floor. Mahinja restrained H.M. and prevented her from jumping. Before they took H.M. with them from her apartment, Ilunga took a knife and slashed the furniture in H.M.’s living room and knocked over her television. The three offenders took a number of items that H.M. testified belonged to her and Ilunga claimed were hers.
[5] Ilunga drove them to Mahinja’s home with H.M. seated in the back seat between Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema. Ilunga forced H.M. to sit on the ground in Mahinja’s back yard with one breast exposed while she continued to interrogate her about sleeping with R. H.M. was crying loudly and eventually gave her cell phone password to Ilunga, whereupon Ilunga saw a picture of H.M. having sexual relations with R, which further infuriated her.
[6] Eventually H.M. was brought into Mahinja’s home. Mahinja brought a mattress to the centre of her living room. Mahinja also brought her hair removal cream to the living room. Ilunga forced H.M. to remove her clothing and lie naked on the mattress in Mahinja’s living room where Ilunga applied the hair removal cream to H.M.’s pubic hair and armpits. Ilunga said she was applying the cream inside H.M.’s vagina and Tomba-Kalema urged her not to do that. Ilunga also recorded her actions and threatened to publish the imagines on social media. Tomba-Kalema urged Ilunga not to publish these images. Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema were in close proximity to H.M. while the cream was being applied.
[7] Ilunga distributed the intimate images of H.M. and they ended up being published on social media. The intimate images were widely viewed by many members of the Congolese community in Canada, Belgium and Africa causing a serious invasion of H.M.’s privacy.
[8] On the morning after, Ilunga drove with Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema to a festival in Toronto. Ilunga was singing along with the music, celebrating what she had done. Ilunga changed the words of the song saying, ‘Chou chou hits so hard’, ‘ah ah ah lets cut the pubic hair, let’s cut the ‘fumbwa’’. Ilunga was celebrating and showed no remorse. Mahinja was also singing and celebrating with Ilunga. Tomba-Kalema was quiet and did not celebrate, rather she warned them that H.M. would bring them to justice.
Positions of Crown and Defence
[9] The Crown is seeking a sentence for Ilunga of 10 years in prison less credits for pre-sentence custody plus a number of ancillary orders. The Crown seeks a sentence of 8 years for kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter and assault, 1 year consecutive for distribution of intimate images and 1 year consecutive for the sexual assault.
[10] The Crown seeks a total of 7 years for both Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema; 6.5 years for kidnapping, unlawful confinement and break and enter, and 6 months consecutive for sexual assault, plus several ancillary orders.
[11] Ilunga submits that a sentence of 4 years concurrent on all charges is appropriate in the circumstances. Ilunga also submits that she should receive pre-sentence credit on a 1.5:1 basis of 29 months to November 17, 2020, a credit of 15 months for 1/3 of the time on bail, a lockdown credit of 1 month and 12.5 days and a COVID credit of 123 days. The total credits claimed are 49 months and 15.5 days, which results in a sentence of time served plus possibly some probation.
[12] Mahinja submits that after receiving credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions she should receive a suspended sentence plus probation for 3 years. Mahinja submits that the sentence sought by the Crown is excessive given her degree of moral blame worthiness and that to impose a sentence in excess of 2 years in prison would be an error in principle.
Impact on the Victim
[13] These offences have had a horrendous impact on H.M.. She felt shame and humiliation because her whole community knew about the assault, and she feels unsafe and anxious. She was bullied through her program and she was the subject of a number of rumours. She became suicidal and has symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She is very grateful for the support provided to her by her mother. She also suffers from recurring nightmares. H.M. has also suffered damage of $5000 to her furniture and from the stolen property.
Offender’s Circumstances
Ilunga
[14] Ilunga was the principal in all of the above offences and committed them to exact revenge against H.M.. Ilunga is currently 46 years of age and was born in Kinshasa, Congo. Her father was killed in 2001 because of his work and her mother lives in Brussels, Belgium. She was married in Kinshasa, but her husband died in 2002 and shortly thereafter she moved to Montreal.
[15] Ilunga has a 16-year old daughter, the father of whom was irresponsible. Her daughter lives with her aunt in Montreal.
[16] Ilunga moved to Ottawa in 2013 because she was committing too many thefts in Montreal. She was living on social assistance at the time of the offences. Ilunga denies having any problems with alcohol or drugs.
[17] Ilunga did not express any remorse for her actions and offers an incredible explanation that she asked the victim if she was interested in sexual activity as a threesome and as a result H.M. needed to be cleaned up. Ilunga’s lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor but indicates a reduced possibility of rehabilitation.
[18] Ilunga has a number of previous criminal convictions, including a serious one for assault causing bodily harm in 2003 and two fraud convictions, possession of credit cards and three theft charges, two fail to comply and a breach of recognizance.
Mahinja
[19] Mahinja is 30 years of age, was born in the Congo and is a new Canadian Citizen. Her family were refugees from Burundi and had to keep their true nationality a secret. Her parents died in a car accident when she was 10 years old. Her older sister initially cared for her and her younger sister. When she was 14 years old, she and her sisters were accepted as permanent residents of Canada. At the age of 15 she was placed in foster care until she was 18 years of age. She has a close relationship with her younger sister.
[20] In 2013 Mahinja gave birth to a daughter, now 7 years old. She has been in a loving relationship with a partner for the last 1.5 years. Her partner considers Mahinja to be his wife; he is an engineer in Alberta. He believes her actions were out of character.
[21] Mahinja has worked for a commercial cleaning company as a dishwasher, and she took courses to be a personal support worker.
[22] Mahinja expressed remorse for her actions and had no criminal record at the time of the offences. She is concerned for her young daughter’s welfare. She plans to move to Calgary to be with her partner when released.
Tomba-Kalema
[23] Tomba-Kalema initially met with the probation office to prepare a pre-sentence report but she failed to appear at the sentencing hearing. Tomba-Kalema is 40 years of age and was born and completed her education in the Congo. She is the oldest of 13 siblings. She took college courses in early childhood education in Canada. She suffers from high blood pressure and has sought psychological counselling in the past. Tomba-Kalema was falsely imprisoned in the Congo and was physically and sexually assaulted for 3 months. She entered Canada as a refugee in 2008.
[24] Life was difficult for her when her father took on a second wife and her twin sister died. She operated her own business for 4 years. She was involved in a relationship for 10 years, but her partner was unfaithful and she has suffered several miscarriages.
[25] Tomba-Kalema did not have a criminal record at the time these offences occurred but was convicted of fraud under $5000 in 2019 for which she received a conditional discharge.
[26] Tomba-Kalema lost her employment as an early childhood educator as a result of these charges and is currently receiving social assistance. She attended two meetings with the probation services and then discontinued cooperation. She initially attended the first sentencing hearing, which was adjourned, but has not attended the sentencing hearing. Her sentencing hearing proceeded in her absence.
Mitigating Factors
Ilunga
[27] Ilunga immigrated to Canada from the Congo in 2002 and has not served a lengthy prison sentence before these offences. She has successfully completed a number of educational bible study courses while in custody, which indicates that there is some hope for her rehabilitation.
Mahinja
[28] The following are mitigating factors for Mahinja:
a) Mahinja had a difficult life in the Congo as her parents both died when she was 10 years of age. She came to Canada when she was 14 and at 15, she was placed in a foster home;
b) She has a 7-year-old daughter;
c) She expresses remorse for her actions but is not prepared to apologize because she feels she must pardon herself first;
d) She did not have a criminal record at the time of the commission of the offences; and
e) She prevented H.M. from jumping from her 16th floor balcony.
Tomba-Kalema
[29] The following are mitigating factors for Tomba-Kalema:
a) She was falsely imprisoned in the Congo and was repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted while in prison;
b) She lost her employment as an early childhood educator as a result of these charges;
c) She urged Ilunga not to publish the video but also gave instructions on how to apply the hair removal cream; and
d) She appeared remorseful on the day following the incident and was not celebrating and singing like Ilunga and Mahinja.
Aggravating Factors
[30] The following are aggravating factors:
For Ilunga
a) She has a criminal record with 9 prior convictions; one for assault causing bodily harm in 2003;
b) Section 348 makes committing a home invasion knowing the dwelling was occupied and using violence against the occupant an aggravating factor;
c) Ilunga entered H.M.’s apartment knowing or being reckless that it was occupied and used violence by confining her in her washroom, physically and sexually assaulting her and slashing H.M.’s furniture with a knife;
d) She forced H.M. to strip and applied hair removal cream to H.M.’s pubic hair and armpits while filming her actions. She distributed these intimate images which were published. The publication of these intimate images has had a severe impact on H.M. and was a very serious violation of H.M.’s dignity and sexual integrity; and
e) Her lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor but shows a lack of insight into her actions and negatively affects her prospects for rehabilitation.
For Mahinja
a) The home invasion and assaults occurred when she knew H.M. was present or she was reckless (see 30 (a) above);
b) She committed two breaches of her bail conditions, one by driving a motor vehicle without her surety being present and driving with a learner’s license. However, those breaches are only to be considered when considering any credit to be given for her time on bail conditions;
c) Her conduct has had a severe impact on the victim; and
d) Her conduct was a serious violation of H.M.’s sexual integrity.
For Tomla-Kalema
a) The same factors identified above for Mahinja apply to Tomba-Kalema; and
b) She has failed to attend court for her sentencing hearing.
Principles of Sentencing
[31] The governing principles in this sentencing are denunciation and deterrence of the offenders’ conduct. Ilunga was the principal offender and Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema were aiders. The sentences imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of these offences and the degree of responsibility and moral blameworthiness of the offenders. In addition, the principle of totality is applicable and whether concurrent or consecutive sentences should be imposed.
Caselaw and Reasons
[32] The Crown and defence agree that there is no previous case that is exactly on point.
[33] In R. v. Hopwood, [2020] O.J. No. 4112, the accused and three others entered the apartment of an intellectually challenged man and for over 42 hours confined him in a dog cage, robbed, assaulted and extorted him. They forced the victim to call his father and demand a “$300 000” ransom and threatened to kill his cats and harm his family. The offenders threw bleach and gasoline on the victim and drove him to a remote spot, forced him to remove his clothing, choked him to unconsciousness and abandoned him. The accused received an 8.5-year sentence for the home invasion offences and 6 months on the obstruction charge. The Court of Appeal stated that “it considered the sentence imposed to fall at the very lowest end of an acceptable spectrum of sentences for the offences involved.”
[34] In Hopwood at para 14, Nordheimer, J.A. referred to the Court of Appeal decision of R. v. Wright, (2006), 2006 CanLII 40975 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 427, which stated that the cases referenced for home invasions ranged from “as low as four or five years, to as high as eleven to thirteen years.” At the bottom of the paragraph the Court of Appeal stated that “to the extend there can be said to be a range in home invasion cases, it would appear that the one that currently exists is the expansive one outlined above.
[35] In R. v. Vu, 2012 SCC 40, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 411, at para 6 the Supreme Court held that kidnapping was a continuing offence from when the victim was apprehended until freed.
[36] In R. v. A.G., [2016] O.J. No. 6177 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 13 years imprisonment less pre-sentence credit, 7 years concurrent for extortion and 2 years concurrent for the assault. The appellant was a first-time offender. The accused broke into the victim’s home, committed sexual assaults and acts designed to humiliate her, deprived her of food and confined her for just under two days.
[37] The accused in this case argue that the sexual assault was less severe because it did not involve vaginal penetration. However, the hair removal cream was inserted inside the victim’s vagina and constituted a very serious violation of the victim’s privacy and sexual integrity. The fact that these are different ways of committing a sexual assault does not necessarily lessen the seriousness. This was a serious sexual assault.
[38] In R. v. Stuckless, 2019 ONCA 504 the Court of Appeal held that penetration does not determine whether a sexual assault is serious. A sexual assault which violates a victim’s privacy and sexual integrity where a video of the assault was distributed and ultimately published on social media made the sexual assault very serious.
[39] In R. v. Downey, 2010 ONSC 1531, 2010 CarswellOnt 1482, the accused had kidnapped and physically and sexually assaulted the victim for over 24 hours. She was assaulted, stripped, bound and beaten and subjected to sexual assault with a bottle. The victim suffered physical and psychological harm. The accused received a six-year sentence. Ilunga submits that the circumstances of her offences are less serious than several of the cases referred to by the Crown, where lengthy sentences were imposed.
[40] The Crown submits that a sentence of 8 years for the kidnapping and the other charges combined plus 1-year consecutive for the sexual assault and 1- year consecutive for the distribution of an intimate image is appropriate. The defence submits that a global concurrent sentence should be imposed as these offences have “a sufficiently close connection arising from what in reality is the same incident or transaction.” The above test was used by Hill, J. in R. v. M.E., 2012 ONSC 1078, [2012] O.J. No. 1627 (S.C.J.).
[41] In R. v. J.T.B., [2018] O.J. No. 2018 at para 49 Leach, J. referred to a decision of Justice Clark in R. v. Dass, and stated as follows:
The general principle is that where there is a reasonably close nexus between the offences in time and place, and where they appear to be part of “one continuing crime operation”, the sentencing should be concurrent: Sentencing (6th) ed. Ruby et al., (Markham & Butterworth, 2004), at para 14:10.
[42] In this case there was a close nexus in time between all of the offences and while H.M. was taken from her apartment to Mahinja’s home, I find that the offences occurred during what was a continuous transaction. I note that in Vu the Supreme Court of Canada held that kidnapping was a continuous offence and in R v. A.G. (supra) concurrent sentences were imposed. The sexual assaults and Ilunga’s threats to publish the videos with the intimate images also occurred during H.M.’s confinement. I infer from the evidence that Ilunga planned to publish the videos to exact revenge on H.M. and formed the intent of doing so during H.M.’s confinement.
[43] As a result, I find that concurrent sentences should be imposed as the offences occurred as part of the same transaction.
[44] The defence does not disagree with the range of sentence suggested in Wright but have submitted a number of cases where sentences at the low end of this range were imposed. The defence submits that the facts in this case are less serious than those in Hopwood and R. v. A.G. and as a result lower sentences should be imposed.
[45] Mahinja submits that a suspended sentence of two years less a day is appropriate for her, which is below the ranges referred to by the Court of Appeal. Mahinja submits that her conduct as an aider was much less morally blameworthy than that of Ilunga. Ilunga submits that a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, less various credits is appropriate, which is at the low end of the range as set out in Wright.
[46] A large number of the cases and submissions of the defence address the credit that should be given for lockdown, being on strict bail conditions and for COVID-19.
[47] I find that Ilunga’s moral blameworthiness is greater than that of Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema’s because she orchestrated the break and enter and the confinement and kidnapping. Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema were willing aiders but were not part of the distribution of the video of the intimate images.
[48] The distribution of the victim’s intimate images, which were ultimately widely published on social media and viewed by many members of the Congolese community around the world makes the series of offences very serious and moves the sentence upwards in the range of appropriate sentences. Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema were not convicted of the distribution charge and in fact Tomba-Kalema urged Ilunga not to publish the video.
[49] I find that the range of sentence for a home invasion plus the serious offences that were committed by the accused is between 4 and 13 years in prison. Based on the fact that Ilunga was the principal in committing these serious offences, she has a prior criminal record, the serious impact of the offences on H.M., the seriousness of the offences which move the sentence up the range due to Ilunga’s action of distributing the intimate images, which then were widely seen by members of the Congolese community, I sentence Ilunga to 8 years in prison, for the kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter and assaults; 1 year concurrent for the sexual assault and 1 year concurrent for distribution of an intimate image.
[50] I find that the sentence for Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema should be the same as their roles as aiders were similar. Tomba-Kalema showed more remorse than Mahinja but she has not attended for her sentencing hearing. I sentence Mahinja and Tomba-Kalema to 4 years in prison for the kidnapping, unlawful confinement and break and enter and six months concurrent for the sexual assault. Their sentence is based on the fact that their conduct was less morally blameworthy than that of Ilunga, they did not have a criminal record at the time the offences were committed, this sentence is at the low end of the range, they willingly assisted Ilunga in confining H.M. and kidnapping her, entered H.M.’s apartment without her consent, and were willing participants in applying hair removal cream to H.M.’s pubic hair and armpits while she lay naked on the mattress and was being filmed, their actions have had a serious impact on the victim and they have committed serious offences.
Credits for Pre-Sentence Custody
[51] Ilunga has spent 19 months and 10 days (589 days) in pre-sentence custody until November 17, 2020. The sentence will be delivered on January 12, 2021, which is in a further 56 days and therefore Ilunga will receive a credit for pre-sentence custody on a 1.5:1 basis of 22 months and 1 day.
[52] Mahinja has spent 201 days in pre-sentence custody and on a 1.5:1 basis she will receive a credit of 301.5 days. Tomba-Kalema spent 245 days in pre-sentence custody and on a 1.5:1 she will receive a credit of 367.5 days. Tomba-Kalema is being sentenced in her absence pursuant to s. 475 (1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.
Credit for Stringent Bail Conditions
[53] Ilunga spent 45 months and 11 days subject to strict bail conditions. She seeks a credit for 1/3 of this time, which amounts to a credit of 15 months. The Crown opposes any credit for restrictive bail conditions but submits that if some credit is to be given it should be on a qualitative as opposed to a quantitative basis.
[54] As a condition of her bail Ilunga was required to reside with a surety, or with her sister between 15h00 to 11h30. She was permitted to leave her residence if she found work, to attend medical appointments, or approved therapy and unless otherwise approved, she was required to be with one of her sureties. She was prohibited from using any social media platform on the internet and could only use the internet under supervision related to employment, financial matters or to communicate with her lawyer. I find that these were stringent conditions.
[55] In R. v. Downes 79 OR (3d) 301 (ONT C.A.) the trial judge did not take into account the impact of house arrest bail conditions. Rosenberg J.A. held that the trial judge should have taken this into account as a mitigating factor, and it should have been given some weight, but it was entitled to little weight because there was little evidence of the actual effect on the accused. This is the case for all 3 accused before me. The Court of Appeal gave a credit of 5 months for the 18 months spent on stringent house arrest bail conditions.
[56] In this case Ilunga will be given a credit of 8 months on a qualitative basis as a result of spending 45 months and 11 days on house arrest bail conditions.
[57] Mahinja was on strict house arrest bail conditions for 5 years and 14 days. She breached her conditions of bail once by driving without her surety and by driving alone without a full driving license.
[58] Mahinja also failed to attend the initial meeting for her presentence report and did not attend the first sentencing hearing but did attend all other required meetings and sentencing hearings thereafter. She has largely complied with strict bail conditions for over 5 years for which I give her credit for 10.3 months.
[59] Tomba-Kalema was on strict house arrest bail conditions for 3 years and eight months (February 17/2016 to October 18/2019). However, she did not attend all of the interviews to complete her presentence report and other than the first sentencing hearing she has not attended her sentencing hearings. As such has not complied with her conditions for the last 8 months. In these circumstances Tomba-Kalema will be given a credit of 7 months for strict bail conditions.
Credit for Lockdown Time and COVID-19 for Ilunga
[60] Ilunga seeks a further credit of 42.5 days on a 1:1 basis for days when the institution was on lockdown. She also seeks an additional credit of 4 months and 3 days on a 0.5 day for each day basis because her incarceration occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[61] The lockdowns were caused by staff shortage which I infer were largely caused by the COVID-19 virus pandemic and so they are related.
[62] Ilunga was locked down for 36 days for 10 hours, 10 days for 6 hours and 3 days for 4 hours. The inmates are usually permitted 8-10 hours in a common dayroom which is not allowed during lockdowns. The inmates are forced to remain in their small prison cells during lockdowns and there may be limited access to showers, phones and visits.
[63] In R. v. McNichols, [2020] O.J. No. 4875 the court considered the credit to be given for time during lockdowns. The offender must show the “adverse effect” of the restrictions on the offender. The court awarded a credit of 2 months for 210 days of full and partial lockdown.
[64] Mr. McNichols also claimed a credit for the effects of COVID-19, where he was not allowed visits from friends and family and his elderly mother; he felt his health was at risk and he was not able to complete a business course while in detention. Aktar, J. refused to give him any additional credit due to the fact that he was detained during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[65] Ilunga makes a similar claim to those in the McNichol case, however in Ilunga’s situation there have not been any COVID-19 outbreaks in any of the institutions where she was detained during this period. Ilunga has presented evidence that she suffers from high blood pressure but has not produced any expert evidence that she has any medical condition that makes her particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. As a result, I will not give Ilunga any credit for being detained during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[66] Ilunga is given a credit of 20 days on a qualitative basis for the hardship suffered during 42.5 days of lockdown.
Disposition
[67] Ilunga is sentenced to 8 years in prison, reduced to 7 years based on the totality principle, for the kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter, assault, sexual assault, and the distribution of intimate images convictions. She is entitled to a credit of 22 months and 1 day for presentence custody, a credit of 8 months for stringent bail conditions and 20 days for lockdowns.
[68] After the credits are applied Ilunga is sentenced toa further 4 years, 5 months and 10 days in prison (7 years – (22 months and 6 days + 8 months + 20 days)).
[69] Mahinja is sentenced to 4 years in prison less credits. Mahinja is entitled to receive a credit of 301.5 days for presentence custody and 10.3 months credit for being on strict bail conditions, leaving a sentence of 2 years and 4 months to be served in prison.
[70] Tomba-Kalema is also sentenced to four years in prison, less a credit for presentence custody of 1 year and 3 days plus a credit 7 months for being on strict bail conditions for the kidnapping, unlawful confinement, break and enter and sexual assault, leaving her with a further sentence of 2 years, 3 months and 28 days to be served in prison.
Ancillary Orders
[71] All offenders will be subject to a DNA order (primary) pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, a SOIRA order for 20 years pursuant to s. 490.013 (2)(b) of the Criminal Code and a lifetime firearms ban pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.
Released: January 12, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: 15-5098
DATE: 20210112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
-and –
EUNICE ILUNGA, SAFI MAHINJA and SANDRINE TOMBA-KALEMA
Offenders
COUNSEL:
James Cavanagh and Louise Tansey, for the Crown
Paolo Giancaterino, for Eunice Ilunga
Sandrine Tomba-Kalema, not appearing
Ronald Guertin, for Safi Mahinja
HEARD: December 7-8, 11-14, 18-21 of 2017; March 14, 26-27, July 20 and August 1st, 7 of 2018; March 14, May 7, July 8 of 2019
REASONS FOR sentencing
R. Smith J.
Released: January 12, 2021