court file no.: CR-19-50000472-0000
DATE: 20210506
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
Devonta Groves-Bennett
Jim Cruess, for the Crown
Mahvash Mirza, for Mr. Groves-Bennett
HEARD: July 17, 2020, March 30 and April 22, 2021
KELLY J.
reasons for SENTENCE
[1] Mr. Groves-Bennett pleaded guilty to the following offences arising from a home invasion:
| Offence | Criminal Code Section |
|---|---|
| Robbery while armed with a knife on December 13, 2017. | 344(1)(b) |
| Assault with a Weapon on December 13, 2017. | 276(a) |
| Fail to Comply, Recognizance on December 13, 2017 by possessing a weapon. | 145(3)(a) |
[2] Mr. Groves-Bennett now appears before me for sentencing.
[3] Crown Counsel submits that the appropriate sentence is a global one of eight years, two months imprisonment. Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett submits that the appropriate sentence is a global one of three to four years’ imprisonment.
[4] Both counsel agree that Mr. Groves-Bennett should receive credit for time served, pursuant to R. v. Summers.[^1] Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett submits that some credit should be given for the harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Groves-Bennett while incarcerated, pursuant to R. v. Duncan.[^2] She also submits that Mr. Groves-Bennett should be given credit for the restrictions while on bail pursuant to R. v. Downes.[^3] Crown counsel opposes both Duncan and Downes credit.
[5] Lastly, both counsel agree that the following ancillary orders should be imposed and they are granted:
(i) an order pursuant to s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 that Mr. Groves-Bennett provide a sample of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and storage in the national DNA database; and
(ii) a s. 109 order for life.
[6] After having considered the facts of the case, Mr. Groves-Bennett’s personal background, and the relevant legal principles, I find that the appropriate sentence is eight years in custody. Mr. Groves-Bennett will be given pre-sentence credit of three years. This will require that Mr. Groves-Bennett serve another five years in custody.
[7] What follows are my reasons.
The Facts
[8] The facts giving rise to the plea and conviction formed part of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The ASF may be summarized as follows:
a. There are five members of the Dinis family that include the following: Francisco (father), Lucy (mother), Christopher (now 25 years of age), Matthew (now 21 years of age) and Joshua (now 17 years of age).
b. In December 2017, the Dinis family lived in a detached home located at 22 Yarn Road in Etobicoke. The home is equipped with HD surveillance cameras that capture activity on the exterior of the home as well as the interior.
c. On Wednesday, December 13, 2017, all members of the Dinis family were inside their home. Ms. Anna Maria Sky-Slabinski (Matthew’s girlfriend) was also present.
d. At approximately 9:30 p.m. there was a knock on the door of the home. Lucy opened the door to three males. Mr. Groves-Bennett was in a blue hoodie and black track pants. He was in the company of a young person and an unknown suspect. Mr. Groves-Bennett was armed with a large blue and black knife. The young person also had a knife.
e. The young person said, “excuse me ma’am”. He then stepped into the house, grabbed Lucy and put the knife to her neck.
f. Mr. Groves-Bennett and the unknown suspect entered the house and approached Francisco. They started yelling at him and repeatedly saying, “give me the money”.
g. Matthew and Anna Maria were in the basement. They heard yelling and Francisco say, “what the fuck?”. Matthew realized that something was wrong. He armed himself with scissors and went upstairs. When he got to the landing, he saw the young person holding a knife to his mother’s throat. He returned to the basement. Matthew and Anna Maria locked themselves in the basement and called 911.
h. Christopher also heard the commotion and came downstairs. When he heard the robbers demanding money, he told them there was a safe in the mudroom. The younger person became more aggressive with Lucy. He commanded that she open the safe or he would slit her throat.
i. Joshua was in the shower upstairs when the incident started and remained upstairs. However, the unknown suspect went upstairs. He saw Joshua and brought him downstairs. Joshua was only wearing a towel at the time.
j. Francisco opened the safe in the mudroom. It contained approximately $500 in $5 bills. Francisco explained that the money was lunch money for his children. The robbers took the money.
k. Mr. Groves-Bennett and the unknown suspect started yelling and pushing Francisco. They demanded more money. Francisco advised there was another safe in the basement.
l. The young person told Mr. Groves-Bennett and the unknown suspect to go with Francisco to the basement and he continued to hold the knife to Lucy’s throat. The unknown suspect pushed Francisco toward the basement. Francisco, Chris, Joshua and Mr. Groves-Bennett all went to the basement.
m. When in the basement, the unknown suspect was screaming in Francisco’s face. He demanded the code for the safe and then punched Francisco in the face.
n. Mr. Groves-Bennett confronted Francisco as well. The unknown suspect then went upstairs. He took Christopher with him when he did.
o. Mr. Groves-Bennett continued to talk to Francisco. The unknown suspect returned to the basement with Christopher. He had a cell phone in his hand.
p. Mr. Groves-Bennett held an empty duffle bag up to Francisco. He looked back and forth between Francisco and Joshua before using his knife to slash Joshua’s right arm several times. He caused three slash marks, none of which required stitches.
q. Francisco and the unknown suspect then went upstairs. Mr. Groves-Bennett and Christopher remained in the basement.
r. Christopher told Mr. Groves-Bennett that Matthew had a safe. Christopher kicked down the door to Matthew’s bedroom. Mr. Groves-Bennett discovered Matthew and Anna Maria inside. He then demanded that Matthew, Anna Maria and Christopher enter the cold room.
s. Upstairs, the young person took Lucy to the kitchen where her purse was located. He started to rifle through it while still holding the knife to her throat. He told Lucy that her son’s girlfriend talks too much because she said the family had $150,000 in the house. The young person removed Lucy’s wallet. It contained no money so instead he took her phone. He demanded that Lucy provide him with the lock code to the safe.
t. As Lucy was giving the young person the code, police officers arrived on scene. The young person ran toward the back door but was arrested by police.
u. Lucy and Francisco ran downstairs and observed Mr. Groves-Bennett attempting to flee. They tried to stop him, but he broke free, ran up the stairs and out the front door. Mr. Groves-Bennett was arrested approximately 100 metres from the home.
v. The following property was recovered in the possession of the young person:
i. A Samsung cell phone;
ii. $476.00 CSD; and
iii. 10 LCBO gift cards in the amount of $25.
w. Members of the family suffered the following injuries:
i. Lucy: a scratch to the right side of her face;
ii. Francisco: a possible concussion; and
iii. Joshua: three slash marks to his right arm.
x. At the time of the offences, Mr. Groves-Bennett was on a recognizance of bail. One of the terms of his release was that he not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code. Of course, he was in breach of his recognizance by possessing the knife.
y. Mr. Groves-Bennett was released on bail for the charges involving the Dinis family. He was to remain in his residence unless in the presence of his surety (Ms. Catherine Renner). On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 he was seen in the area of Stonebridge Drive and Wilford Morrison Avenue in Markham. He was screaming that he was going to kill people. He kicked and damaged an electrical box in the area. Police located Mr. Groves-Bennett outside the Stonebridge Public School. He was crouched on the floor hugging his legs and hyperventilating. He was speaking to Ms. Renner on the phone as police approached.
z. Mr. Groves-Bennett initially failed to identify himself. After he did so, he advised police that he suffers from schizophrenia and that he was hearing voices. He advised police that he was to be taking medication but was not doing so at the time. Of course, Mr. Groves-Bennett was not in the presence of Ms. Renner at the time and accordingly, was in breach of his recognizance of bail.
[9] The video surveillance from the Dinis home was provided to the court. It confirms much of the content of the ASF.
[10] These are the facts upon which Mr. Groves-Bennett is being sentenced. I will now turn to a consideration of the victim impact.
Victim Impact
[11] Ms. Lucy Dinis provided a Victim Impact Statement. In it, she stated (amongst other things) as follows:
a. That her life has changed forever. She no longer feels safe or trusts anyone. She feels “constantly afraid and feels like something is going to happen”.
b. She has had many months of therapy to help her cope with her fears and continues to attend. She continues to suffer flashbacks of answering her door, being turned around and having a knife put to her throat. It is a vision that plays over and over in her head.
c. The security system in the home has been upgraded. Despite that, she continues to be fearful.
d. The night of the robbery (December 13), the house was aglow with Christmas décor. The next moment, it felt like a “horror movie”. Rather than the joy that the Christmas season brings, Christmas now brings back bad memories.
e. The mental scars from this home invasion robbery will be with her for life.
[12] Mr. Francisco Dinis provided a Victim Impact Statement. In it, he stated (amongst other things) as follows:
a. He describes that his home is no longer a place in which he feels safe and secure. The family’s innocence has gone forever as a result of being held hostage and having their lives threatened. He felt scared to the core during the incident.
b. He felt helpless because he knew that he did not have the amount of money that the robbers wanted, no matter what he did.
c. He no longer feels safe in his house. He is constantly reminded of the incident and has found it hard to work or do much else.
d. In the aftermath of the home invasion robbery, he described that he spent the next few days in a daze. He looked at the broken doors and “our memories and belongings tossed around like we did not matter”.
e. He describes the flashbacks, “the image in my mind of my wife at knifepoint and my child threatened to be cut up”. It still brings tears to his eyes and results in sleepless nights.
f. Christmas, usually a high point of the year, now brings feelings of fear and confusion.
g. During the home invasion, he describes that he was punched on the head. He suffered scratches, cuts and bruises as well as a concussion. He felt confused and could not focus. The memories and fears are permanent.
[13] Mr. Joshua Dinis provided a Victim Impact Statement. In it, he stated (amongst other things) as follows:
a. That he no longer feels safe in his neighbourhood or home.
b. He is always on high alert and is nervous when he hears a knock on the door.
c. He suffered some knife scratches which improved but only after two weeks.
[14] I will now turn to a consideration of Mr. Groves-Bennett’s background.
Personal Background
[15] Mr. Groves-Bennett’s background was provided to the Court in various documents, many of which will be referred to below. I will deal with those prepared in anticipation of this sentencing hearing and then deal with the historical reports prepared for other matters.
The Pre-Sentence Report of September 14, 2020
[16] The pre-sentence report, dated September 14, 2020, provides as follows:
a. Mr. Groves-Bennett was born on December 16, 1998. He is currently 22 years of age. He was born in Toronto. His parents separated when he was two years of age.
b. Mr. Groves-Bennett has seven siblings. He is the oldest.
c. Mr. Groves-Bennett describes his upbringing as unstable. When he was born, he was apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”). His mother was young and unable to care for him. He remained in the care of the CAS until age three. He then took up residence with his grandmother. He remained with her until age seven.
d. At age seven, Mr. Groves-Bennett returned to live with his mother and his siblings. He described the environment as “toxic and crazy”. He described that he suffered both physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his mother. He received lashings, injuries that required stitches and suffered black eyes. Often, he was afraid to return to his home after school.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett appears to have been neglected by a mother who was more interested in her boyfriends, partying and taking care of her other children. She played favorites among her children, often turning them against each other. Mr. Groves-Bennett was routinely described by her as a “bad person”.
f. Mr. Groves-Bennett returned to the care of his grandmother between ages seven and 12. He ran away and was placed in various foster and group homes until age 17.
g. Mr. Groves-Bennett does not have a relationship with his mother. He has little contact with his siblings.
h. Mr. Groves-Bennett was able to re-establish a relationship with his father that was positive. He wishes to continue a relationship with his father once released.
i. Mr. Groves-Bennett has a girlfriend. He does not have any children of his own.
j. Mr. Groves-Bennett attended and completed elementary school. He reported that he received several suspensions but explained that he was simply “trying to get attention and love”.
k. Mr. Groves-Bennett attended five high schools and is three credits short of obtaining his diploma. He was in several of these schools as he moved from foster and group homes. He was suspended several times due to fighting, acting out and being intoxicated by marijuana. Mr. Groves-Bennett advises that he wishes to complete his high school education.
l. Mr. Groves-Bennett advises that he has been employed as a night club promoter, server and cleaner. He also worked in a music studio where he would record, write and engineer music. Mr. Groves-Bennett has also been employed at a factory constructing wooden pallets. He has been a cashier in a fast food restaurant.
m. Mr. Groves-Bennett has expressed an interest in attending college for audio and engineering programming. If he is not able to succeed with this ambition, he will attempt to become an auto mechanic.
n. Mr. Groves-Bennett reports that he started using alcohol and other substances while in high school. He has used marijuana, MDMA, Xanax, Percocet, mushrooms, LSD and Lean (a mixture of cough syrup, soda and hard candy). Mr. Groves-Bennett acknowledges abuse of substances has resulted in him suffering seizures (three) and advises he should be “dead” as a result of this abuse.
o. Mr. Groves-Bennett advises that he would be willing to attend counseling for substance abuse treatment. He does not wish to abstain; he wishes to control his substance intake.
p. Mr. Groves-Bennett reports that he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression and having anger management issues. He advised that he has seen two psychiatrists while in custody and two while in the community. He was prescribed medication while in custody but refuses to take it. He does not like how he feels when medicated.
q. Mr. Groves-Bennett reports that he has attempted suicide approximately 25 times. The attempts were made by hanging, cutting and with a pistol (it jammed). He currently reports no suicidal ideation.
r. Mr. Groves-Bennett has expressed remorse for his conduct in these offences. He says that he is “sorry” and that he is not the same person who committed these offences. He does not minimize his behavior and he is aware of the harm he caused to the victims.
[17] Mr. Groves-Bennett’s friend, Mr. Maurizio LaRosa was interviewed in preparation of the pre-sentence report. He has known Mr. Groves-Bennett since age 15. He describes Mr. Groves-Bennett as a “good and pure hearted individual”. Mr. Groves-Bennett has “always been willing to help those in need”. Mr. LaRosa says that Mr. Groves-Bennett had a “tough” childhood. He had a lack of supportive pro-social mentors in his life.
[18] The author of the pre-sentence report concluded as follows (9 days before the home invasion robbery occurred):
A concern for this writer that this is not the first time the subject has had a pre-sentence report completed for violent offences. Ministry records indicate that when the previous report was completed in 2017/2018 the subject admitted responsibility for his actions and noted that he was no longer that immature person. Despite this, the subject is once again before the court for sentencing on violent offences and is again stating that he is a changed person. It does not appear as though previous sentences have deterred criminal actions.
[19] I will now turn to the letter of Ms. Renner filed in this proceeding.
The Letter of Ms. Renner
[20] Ms. Renner provided a letter to the Court. She was Mr. Groves-Bennett’s surety prior to his most recent arrest. She has worked for Planned Parenthood Toronto as a Client Intake Worker. She has a background in social work and has worked in residential settings dealing with youth experiencing behavioral and emotional disorders. At the time of writing the letter, she had known Mr. Groves-Bennett for five years. She stated the following, amongst other things:
a. That her assessment is that Mr. Groves-Bennett is a complex individual who has suffered years of emotional and physical abuse, food and housing instability and neglect.
b. That Mr. Groves-Bennett’s relationship with his mother is complicated. Ms. Renner advises that he loves his mother, but he is “resentful of her inability to adequately care and nurture him”. He is unable to forgive her for the abuse he suffered and the fact that she failed to support him. Ms. Renner is of the view that his relationship “informs how he treats the women in his life – a lack of respect, a need to control and manipulate, and a fear of abandonment”. She describes that Mr. Groves-Bennett’s life was “like walking on eggshells as he feared for his personal safety, as such he learned to lie to protect himself which has become his natural default”.
c. During Mr. Groves-Bennett’s formative years, his father was absent due to criminal activity and periods spent in jail. She opined that Mr. Groves-Bennett “hero-worships his Dad, being impressed by his criminal activity, gang associations and the stature he enjoys within his community. They drink and smoke marijuana and have a relationship that is akin to brothers rather than a father and son”.
d. Since the age of 12, Mr. Groves-Bennett has lived with his paternal grandmother and in various foster homes. He was admitted to Bayfield Treatment Centre, but he eventually ran away from there. He was effectively homeless, sometimes staying with friends, his parents or in a youth shelter.
e. Although he appears to be bright, Mr. Groves-Bennett has achieved limited success with his education. He had a history of poor attendance and was disruptive in class. He has been expelled, suspended or left voluntarily.
f. Mr. Groves-Bennett’s employment history is also sporadic. Ms. Renner advised that he has worked part-time at Metro, Hero Burgers, Pallet Renew and at a bicycle repair shop. He has sold music online and performed at Caribana. He received money from the CAS until age 21 and claimed that he earned money from selling narcotics.
g. Ms. Renner is not aware of Mr. Groves-Bennett using hard drugs while in her care. He simply did not have the money to purchase them. That said, he used marijuana. He drank alcohol regularly.
h. Ms. Renner discussed Mr. Groves-Bennett’s health issues as follows:
Devonta’s mental health issues have all been consistent in diagnosis. He suffers from some degree of schizophrenia and he uses drugs and marijuana to numb psychological pain, and to feel calm and does not believe that using makes his disorders worse. In periods of sobriety his symptoms have persisted. He still exhibits depression, flat affect, lacks empathy, has no remorse and he is manipulative, narcissistic and at times violent. He uses violence as a tool to control and intimidate. He has a lot of rage that he doesn’t know how to deal with, so he embraces it as part of who he is. He seeks continuous external validation and he does not display an ability to learn from his mistakes.
i. Ms. Renner believes that Mr. Groves-Bennett needs real help.
The Report of Dr. Ali
[21] The report from Dr. Ali, dated August 18, 2020, was completed pursuant to a Form 6 Order. It indicated the following and was based on an interview with Mr. Groves-Bennett:
a. Mr. Groves-Bennett confirmed his upbringing and his difficult relationship with his mother who was abusive. He had concerns for his personal safety and a “food insecurity” when living with her.
b. When he was in foster care, he described feeling “left out” because he was a “young black kid” and a “bad influence”. He reports being sexually abused by staff at his group home and ran away at age 16.
c. Mr. Groves-Bennett attended school sporadically. Prior to his arrest, he was attending adult classes to obtain his high school credits.
d. Dr. Ali reports that Mr. Groves-Bennett has previously been diagnosed with several psychiatric conditions including anxiety, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, cannabis use disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Groves-Bennett has been prescribed Abilify (an antipsychotic) but he does not take it as he feels that it makes him “depressed”.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett advised that the home invasion was planned as he wanted to obtain money. At the time, he was using substances as he used them every day.
f. Dr. Ali opined that Mr. Groves-Bennett meets criteria for several substance abuse disorders, specifically Hallucinogen Use Disorder, Opioid Use Disorder, Benzodiazepene Use Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder. Based on the information available, Mr. Groves-Bennett meets the criteria for conduct disorder and possesses antisocial personality traits. Antisocial Personality Disorder should be ruled out.
g. Dr. Ali made recommendations including substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy, follow-up with a mental health provider for monitoring symptoms and stable housing, structure and a vocational program.
The Report of Ms. Richards dated January 26, 2021
[22] A comprehensive report was provided to the Court entitled, “Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report”. It was authored by Ms. Michelle Richards MSW, RSW.[^4] It was provided by Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett to assist in understanding the effects of systemic racism.
[23] The report of Ms. Richards was very detailed and paints a vivid picture of Mr. Groves-Bennett’s upbringing, as provided by him. Following cross-examination by Crown counsel, both counsel agreed that this report could relied upon as providing a perspective from Mr. Groves-Bennett, nothing more.[^5]
[24] In preparing her report, Ms. Richards communicated with some personal contacts, including Mr. Maurizio Nicolas LaRosa and Ms. Oliva Mairoano (friends) and Ms. Catharine Renner (the previous surety whose letter was provided to the Court). Ms. Richards accessed Mr. Groves-Bennett’s records from the Catholic CAS of Metropolitan Toronto; the assessment conducted by Dr. Ali, from July 2020; and an assessment conducted by Dr. McDonald dated in October 2017.
[25] Ms. Richards provided great detail about Mr. Groves-Bennett’s early childhood experiences, his early years in child welfare, family dynamics including reference to abuse and violence (both witnessed and as a victim); his foster care experience; his education; socio-economic conditions and social influences (i.e., living in subsidized housing); police interactions, etc. She reported on his social relationships and employment as well as his character as represented by others. Some of this information was contradicted by information contained in the other reports (i.e. saying that he had not been employed when speaking with Ms. Richards but agreeing that he had been employed when speaking to the author of the pre-sentence report.)
[26] Ms. Richards provided a detailed assessment, a portion of which I will repeat here:[^6]
I assert that the trajectory of Mr. Groves-Bennett’s life was informed by the circumstances of his birth. He was born to a 14 year old child, who was reportedly in the care of the child welfare system, and a 17 or 18 year old young adult who was in and out of the criminal justice system. His life began in the care of the child welfare system and did not see him reunited with his mother until he was approximately 5 years old. His return to his family of origin was a defining moment that initiated his lifelong experience of verbal and emotional abuse, physical violence, neglect, poverty, child witness to violence, abandonment, disrupted education, homelessness, and his eventual involvement in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Groves-Bennett has been labelled as angry, defiant, violent, oppositional and disruptive since his early elementary school years until the present. Additionally, he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, anti-social, and substance use disorders. From elementary school to his recent present, he has been subjected to psychological/psychiatric assessments, counselling and treatment, with the goal of reforming his poor behaviours.
Between kindergarten to Grade 8, Mr. Groves-Bennett experienced about 6 residential moves, attended 6 different schools, experienced over 265 late arrivals and 90 absences from Grades 1 to 4. He also experienced exclusion in the form of suspensions and was denied attendance to some of his neighbourhood schools.
[27] Ms. Richards notes that Mr. Groves-Bennett takes responsibility for his actions. She reports that he, “unequivocally assumes responsibility for the actions that led to his incarceration and has been prepared to face the consequences. He is not naïve to the reality that actions carry consequences and understands that his childhood and impoverished circumstances do not excuse his behaviours”.
[28] Ms. Richards recommended Mr. Groves-Bennett attend two programs to which Mr. Groves-Bennett has applied and been accepted: “Across Boundaries” and “For Youth Initiative”.
[29] These reports were drafted and prepared in anticipation of the sentence to be imposed for the home invasion and other offences. I will now consider those reports prepared previously.
The Pre-Sentence Report of December 8, 2017
[30] A pre-sentence report dated December 8, 2017 was prepared in anticipation of Mr. Groves-Bennett’s sentencing proceeding for charges involving assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats and mischief over $5,000. It provides as follows:
a. In Grade 11, Mr. Groves-Bennett experienced some negative changes in his life. He describes that he became very hostile and angry, explaining, “the savage came out in me – anyone who looked at me, touched me, breathed near me – they had it coming”. Some of his friends were afraid of him during this time. At the time, he believed that he had matured and was taking school more seriously.
b. Mr. Groves-Bennett reported that he spent approximately one year volunteering with his father at a local institute for the blind. He would assist in the arts and crafts programs.
c. Mr. Groves-Bennett denied having substance abuse issues at this time, but agreed that he smoked marijuana, “but the frequency of use is few and far between”.
d. Mr. Groves-Bennett expressed regret for the commission of his offences and did not blame the victims.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett accepted that he was aware of an anger management issue which needs to be addressed. He was willing to seek programming and treatment to avoid any “outbursts or incidents in the future”. The report states, “The subject is willing to seek help to control his anger as he recognizes he is young and can learn to change his ways. He stated that he is trying to learn more about his anger by taking deep breaths in difficult situations or by removing himself from the situation.” Mr. Groves-Bennett attributed his anger to “growing up in a hostile environment, constantly surrounded by negative and angry individuals and family members”.
f. Ms. Catherine Renner, Mr. Groves-Bennett’s surety at the time, advised that she believes that he is productive, but is hindered by his impulsivity. She observed that “he wants things to happen in an instant and when they don’t go his way, he becomes frustrated and eventually resorts to anger”. He would benefit from anger management counseling.
g. He denied any mental health problems or suicide attempts.
The Report of Dr. MacDonald
[31] The psychiatric report from Dr. MacDonald,[^7] dated January 16, 2018, was produced pursuant to a Form 6 Order. The report indicates the following:
a. That Mr. Groves-Bennett appears to suggest that he is on good terms with his family. Dr. MacDonald observed that Mr. Groves-Bennett “showed particular admiration for his father, seemingly in part because he has an extensive criminal record, has been involved in drugs and gangs and is a significant figure in the criminal subculture who is frightening to many who are aware of him”.
b. Mr. Groves-Bennett appeared to indicate that, as a youth, he had shot a child with a bb gun and seemed to regard this as trivial. He referred to accessing and using real guns. To Dr. MacDonald, he “appeared to take some pride in frightening others”.
c. Mr. Groves-Bennett acknowledged problems with his temper, suggesting it could be extremely bad.
d. Dr. MacDonald reported being “struck” by the complete “lack of embarrassment” that Mr. Groves-Bennett felt in association with antisocial behavior. He has a “striking” amount of self-confidence and “associated narcissism”.
e. Dr. MacDonald diagnosed Mr. Groves-Bennett as follows:
Seldom have I seen a young man in this age bracket who is so clearly imbued with antisocial proclivities and who has such minimal regret about any of his behavioural indiscretions. Although there are substance abuse issues, these are difficult to apportion in terms of their impact on his chronic behavioural difficulties. The most likely diagnosis for him would be a Cluster B type personality disorder, i.e. one marked by rather extreme antisocial inclinations as well as borderline tendencies and a striking degree of narcissism. The paranoid component most often associated with this diagnosis is relatively not very prominent.
He has clearly had serious problems with anger and temper control. He has previously been directed toward programs attempting to modify this. By his own account, he did not feel they were effective, nor did he seem even remotely interested in further involvement of this sort.
In addition, Mr. Groves-Bennett did not seem interested in changing his substance use pattern, about which he was extremely contradicted. Nonetheless, he readily acknowledged a wide variety of substance use that would likely aggravate his other ongoing difficulties.
f. Dr. MacDonald concluded that Mr. Groves-Bennett “did not appear even remotely interested in changing his lifestyle, nor does he experience any significant dysphoria with respect to it”. He accepts himself as an “angry, demanding, intimidating and unpredictable individual”. She could not suggest an effective line of treatment.
Other Information
[32] Mr. Groves-Bennett has a criminal record which includes the following entries:
| Date | Offence | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| August 7, 2017 | Theft under $5,000. | Conditional discharge, 12 months of probation. |
| February 27, 2018 | Assault cause bodily harm. | Suspended sentence, 18 months of probation (in addition to 60 days of pre-sentence custody). |
| Utter threats. | Suspended sentence, 18 months of probation (in addition to 30 days of pre-sentence custody), concurrent. | |
| Mischief over $5,000. | Suspended sentence, 18 months of probation, concurrent. | |
| Fail to comply with recognizance. | As above, concurrent. |
[33] A timeline provided by Crown counsel (and agreed to by Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett) provides the factual background giving rise to his criminal conduct. It may be summarized as follows:
May 21, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett and a young person approached the victim on the street. Mr. Groves-Bennett inquired as to where the victim got his sweater. The young person and two other males surrounded the victim and grabbed his sweater. Mr. Groves-Bennett punched the victim in the face as they did so.
Mary 23, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett and a young person entered Lee’s Foodmart. They selected fireworks and distracted the victim as they took them. The victim attempted to prevent the theft by grabbing Mr. Groves-Bennett from behind. Mr. Groves-Bennett turned around and punched the victim three times, knocking him to the ground. He then stomped on the victim’s head twice and was swinging a large firearm, knocking the victim unconscious.
May 26, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett was released on a recognizance with the assistance of bail program.
June 11, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett contacted his co-accused on the previous sets of charges. He threatened him, implying that he or anyone who protects him will die of a gunshot wound.
June 15, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett was released on a surety/curfew bail. Ms. Catherine Renner was the surety.
August 1, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett attended at a Daisy Mart. He stole three cans of Arizona Iced Tea in the company of another.
August 2, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett pleaded guilty to the theft of the Arizona Iced Tea. He received a conditional discharge.
August 23, 3017: Mr. Groves-Bennett was released on his own recognizance.
October 17, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett attended, in the company of friends, at a McDonalds restaurant on Lakeshore Blvd. West. He got angry. He grabbed a tabletop and ripped if from the stand. He threw it to the ground, smashing it. He approached a food ordering machine and began swinging his fists at the screen. He caused extensive damage to it. He was on probation for the theft offence at the time.
October 23, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett entered a global plea of guilt for the offences of assault cause bodily harm, threatening and mischief over $5,000. Prior to sentencing, he was released on his own recognizance to allow him to participate meaningfully in his pre-sentence report, the assessment by Dr. MacDonald (whom he saw on October 27, 2017) and other reasons.
December 13, 2017: Mr. Groves-Bennett committed the home invasion robbery for which he is currently before the Court. (He was eventually released on a house arrest bail during that time but reincarcerated due to further charges incurred.)
[34] While recently incarcerated, Mr. Groves-Bennett has completed several Core Life Skills – Men’s Educational Sessions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, including: “Anger Management” (twice), “Understanding Feelings”; “Looking for Work”; “Maintaining Employment”; “Thoughts to Action”; “Changing Habits”; “Supportive Relationships”; “Goal Setting”; “Managing Stress”; and “Being an Effective Father”.
[35] At the completion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Groves-Bennett took responsibility for his actions. He stated, as follows:
I would just like to say that I’m sorry. Since I have been in here, I have had a lot of thought and I’ve just been thinking a lot about what I have done and what I did to that family was not right. I should have been in no place to do that. I have been struggling with mental and drug addiction and I really want to – I really want to just fix myself out of that situation. Where I come from, I really had no help and I really want to better myself and to do that, I am the only person that’s going to be able to do that, so I just really wanted to take the time to say I’m sorry and that this situation will never happen again. If I was to be let out, I would prove to the courts that I am a changed man because like I said, I do have mental health issues and drug addiction issues and I have been taking programs trying to better myself, you know, like – like I said, I wasn’t really thinking, it’s said that what I did was what I did and I really am truly sorry for what I did.
[36] I will now turn to a consideration of the relevant legal principles.
The Law
[37] In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Groves-Bennett, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[38] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in ss. 718.2(a)(i) to (vi); the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)).[^8]
[39] Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime.[^9]
b. Range of Sentence
[40] Both Counsel have provided helpful written submissions and cases in support of their positions on sentencing. The material demonstrates that the positions advanced by counsel (four to eight years) are within the range of appropriate sentences for a home invasion robbery.
[41] I have reviewed all the cases provided. R. v. Wright[^10] was referred to by both counsel as a guide when sentencing for home invasion offences. It, together with the other cases, suggest the following:
a. Home invasion offences are serious.
b. Home invasions are characterized by the perpetrators’ forced entry into the home for purposes of committing a theft or robbery, knowing that (or being reckless as to whether) the home is being occupied. The acts committed are accompanied by the use or threatened use of violence, together with confinement of the occupants of the home.
c. Home invasions represent a violation of the sanctity of the home and the security that the homeowners feel while there.
d. Home invasions are frequently perpetrated against vulnerable individuals.
e. Sentences imposed for home invasion offences range from four years to thirteen years in jail.
f. Sentencing ranges provide guidelines for imposing similar penalties for similar offences of a similar nature by similar offenders. However, they are just that – guidelines.
g. Ranges are to be flexible. Each sentence must be imposed based on the facts underlying the offence and the particulars of each individual.
h. The principles of denunciation and deterrence are primary principles when considering a sentence for a home invasion.
i. A lengthy penitentiary term is warranted when an individual is convicted of a home invasion offence because everyone has the right to feel secure in their own residence.
[42] Although the cases assist me in determining the governing principles that must guide my decision, a careful review of them demonstrates that sentencing is not an exact science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. As Chief Justice Lamer noted in R. v. M. (C.A.),[^11] “there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime”.
[43] The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Despite this, and as I have stated above, prior decisions assist in defining the principles that I must apply, in determining the appropriate range of sentence and the factors that place Mr. Groves-Bennett within that range.
c. Systemic Factors
[44] Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett submits that there is a basis to consider the effects of systemic racism as mitigating circumstances in this case. She relies on the following cases in support of that position:
R. v. Jackson:[^12] Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breach of a court order. At the time, he was subject to five separate weapons and ammunition prohibition orders. He was 33 years of age and an “African Nova Scotian”. His father was in the military and rarely home. His mother suffered from mental illness. Mr. Jackson had amassed a significant criminal record and only had a grade 8 education. There was evidence that his criminality was because, in part, he was subject to early racial conflict, identity confusion and family disruption. Nakatsuru J. considered these challenging circumstances as mitigating factors and imposed a sentence of six years.
R. v. Morris:[^13] Mr. Morris was convicted of possessing a loaded firearm while not authorized to do so and carrying a concealed weapon. He was one of four males pursued in connection with a home invasion. Nakatsuru J. found that there were a number of Charter violations and the sentence was reduced as a result. Mr. Morris had a troubled background with behavioral issues including anger, anxiety and impulsiveness. He was 26 years of age and had never graduated from high school. He had been stabbed twice. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He was a first offender but had charges outstanding. Evidence was presented to the trial judge regarding the difficulties faced by black males and Mr. Morris in particular. Nakatsuru J. imposed a sentence of 15 months less three months for the Charter violations. He considered the systemic factors such as racism and the effects of colonialism as mitigating factors in reaching this conclusion.
d. COVID-19 Considerations as a Collateral Consequence
[45] Mr. Groves-Bennett has pleaded guilty and proceeded to sentencing during the global pandemic. Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett also submits that Mr. Groves-Bennett’s sentence should be reduced because he will be serving his sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic. In support of that position she relies on the principles set out in R. v. Hearns[^14]. Boswell J. addressed this issue in the case of R. v. M.W.,[^15] at para. 51:
Going forward, any period of additional incarceration to be served by MW, will be subject to the same COVID-related restrictions he has been experiencing over the past three months, which will include increased time alone in his cell, reduced contact with other inmates, a heightened risk of contracting the novel coronavirus and a suspension of visits from family and friends. In other words, the conditions of his detention will continue to be particularly harsh.
[46] I will now turn to a consideration of the fit sentence.
The Fit Sentence
[47] In considering the fit sentence, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:
a. Mr. Groves-Bennett is a repeat offender.
b. He has a criminal record for other offences involving violence.
c. The home invasion occurred in the midst of a crime spree committed by him and as outlined in the chronology set out above.
d. The home invasion was a planned offence. Mr. Groves-Bennett admits to the planning. It was not an impulsive act.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett and the other perpetrators entered the home of the Dinis family after the door was opened by Lucy. They circled up those in the home to contain them and command their cooperation.
f. The family was violently tossed about as the home invasion moved from floor to floor.
g. The video surveillance is a chilling tool demonstrating the violence exacted on the unsuspecting Dinis family that night. To describe the home invasion as terrifying would be an understatement. The Dinis family looks confused and petrified. They appear desperate to give the perpetrators what they want.
h. Observing the conduct of Mr. Groves-Bennett and the others involved in the home invasion leads to an understanding why the Dinis family’s lives have changed forever as a result of the incident. The violence, including the threatening use of knives, occurred in their own home where they should feel secure.
i. It is a grave home invasion robbery where Mr. Groves-Bennett’s moral blameworthiness is very high. He did not play a minor role. He is the only person who wounded Joshua’s arms – a fourteen year-old who was made even more vulnerable as he was held captive in a towel. Mr. Groves-Bennett was screaming at the victims during the incident.
j. The impact on the victims is significant. They provided Victim Impact Statements. There is a devastating and lasting impact on their lives. There were financial expenses as a result of this offence.
k. Mr. Groves-Bennett wore a hoodie and a bandana covering his face. This was a real disguise.
l. Mr. Groves-Bennett used a weapon – a knife. He used it in a way that terrorized the victims. It could have caused horrific injury to Joshua when he slashed Joshua’s arm.
m. It was a group attack – three individuals were involved.
n. Mr. Groves-Bennett was on ODSP at the time and chose to commit a home invasion for personal gain.
o. Mr. Groves-Bennett was on a recognizance prohibiting him from possessing a weapon. He had entered a plea dealing with his other charges and the court decided to release him on a recognizance for a mental health assessment and to participate in his pre-sentence report. Rather than take advantage of that opportunity, he chose to commit a horrific home invasion.
p. Mr. Groves-Bennett indicated that he had insight into his conduct in October 2017 (during the pre-sentence report interview) but shortly after, he committed this home invasion.
q. Mr. Groves-Bennett was in breach of a court order by possessing a weapon.
r. The breach in Newmarket occurred when he was on release. He was far away from his home.
s. By his own admission, he worked in a nightclub for nine months at a time that he was subject to house arrest. He appears to have little regard for court orders or Ms. Renner who pledged $5,000 as his surety.
[48] There are mitigating circumstances to consider in sentencing Mr. Groves-Bennett as well:
a. Mr. Groves-Bennett pleaded guilty. This provided certainty of result.
b. The plea saved four weeks of trial time, including pre-trial motions and a jury trial. This is significant in a post-Jordan era and in light of the pandemic.
c. He spared the necessity of the victims having to testify at trial.
d. He has expressed remorse.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett is youthful. He is only 22 years of age.
f. He has mental health problems. His latest diagnosis is schizophrenia.
g. He has alcohol and drug problems.
h. He has had little support in his community and few role models. He has little stability. His life has been full of empty promises from his parents.
i. He has some prospects of rehabilitation as demonstrated by his participation in programs at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
j. He has been accepted into two programs. “Across Boundaries” is a vigorous program, including virtual workshops from Monday to Friday for several hours. “Youth Initiatives Today” has several workshops available.
k. His 2016 school record shows that he can attain passing grades despite the lack of advantages and support in his life.
l. Mr. Groves-Bennett has accepted responsibility for his role in the offences. He expressed remorse at the conclusion of the hearing and submitted that he is committed to change.
[49] So what is the fit sentence? The appropriate sentence imposed must be one from which our society feels protected and which deters others from committing similar crimes, without crushing the hopes of Mr. Groves-Bennett and his rehabilitation. However, Mr. Groves-Bennett deserves a sentence that addresses the appropriate legal principles in consideration of his background and the facts.
[50] There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Groves-Bennett was intoxicated at the time of the offence. Further,there does not appear to be a connection between the planned offence of a home invasion and his mental health issues.
[51] I have also taken into consideration that the young person involved received a sentence of probation for his involvement. The court received no further information about the facts giving rise to the plea or the background of the young person. However, I recognize that the Youth Court Justice Act directs a fundamentally different approach to sentencing young persons for a host of good reasons. As such, there is no basis for a comparison of sentences between Mr. Groves-Bennett and the young person.[^16]
[52] Deterrence and denunciation are significant considerations in sentencing a person like Mr. Groves-Bennett who has been found guilty of a serious offence: a home invasion. While I am extremely sympathetic to Mr. Groves-Bennett, I do not find that there are mitigating factors that are so significant that take his case below the appropriate range as set out in Morris or Jackson and those cases filed in support of the range.
[53] Like in Borde,[^17] Hamilton[^18] and Rage,[^19] I find that the sentencing principles which are generally applicable to all offenders, including African Canadians, are sufficiently broad and flexible to allow me, the sentencing judge, to consider the systemic and background factors that played a role in the commission of this offence and the values of the community from which this offender comes. I have done so in reaching my conclusion about the appropriate sentence.
[54] I have considered the background factors of Mr. Groves-Bennett that may have played a role in the offence. They provide context. That said, the conduct of Mr. Groves-Bennett was egregious. The home invasion was an attack on an unsuspecting family, including a 14 year-old who was ensnared in the incident in nothing but a towel, a mother whose children watched as a knife was held to her throat, a brother and son whose family watched as he was slashed by Mr. Groves-Bennett with a knife and a father whose family watched his helplessness and assault to his face.
[55] While the pandemic may be taken into consideration, I remind myself of the principles that collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender as stated in Suter. I agree that the circumstances in which Mr. Groves-Bennett will be serving his sentence will be harsher as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. I have considered such a factor in sentencing Mr. Groves-Bennett.
[56] In reaching my conclusion about the fit sentence I am mindful of the fact that this is Mr. Groves-Bennett’s first visit to the penetentiary and of the direction of Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Borde,[^20] that a “first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible”. Mr. Groves-Bennett is a young man. That said, the jump principle is not applicable in light of the seriousness of these offences, including the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Groves-Bennett.
[57] I have also considered the principle of restraint. Mr. Groves-Bennett’s criminal conduct commenced in 2017 and he does not have any entries as a youth. He accepted responsibility for his conduct by pleading guilty. He appears to have been a model inmate, completing 11 courses and trying to improve his situation. There is no evidence that he was subject to any miconducts while incarcerated. He has applied for and been accepted in programs, if released. While I hope that such conduct is indicative of Mr. Groves-Bennett’s sincerity, the principle of restraint must yield to a certain degree to concerns associated with deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public. A significant penitentiary sentence is required.[^21]
[58] In all of the circumstances, I find that the appropriate sentence is a global one of eight years. Such a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Groves-Bennett. He must be held accountable for his conduct which must be condemned. While a consecutive sentence should be imposed for the breach of recognizance, I will not do so. Due to the principle of totality, the sentence will be concurrent.
[59] Mr. Groves-Bennett is entitled to credit for his pre-sentence custody as follows.
The Summers Credit
[60] Mr. Groves-Bennett will be given credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code and Summers. I am advised that Mr. Groves-Bennett was in custody for 563 real days. Enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in pre-sentence custody, Mr. Groves-Bennett will be given credit for 845 days or 29 months.[^22]
The Duncan Credit
[61] In certain circumstances, particularly when harsh conditions prevailed during pre-sentence incarceration, mitigation greater than the 1.5 days credit set out in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code may be appropriate. In considering whether any enhanced credit should be given, the court will consider the conditions of the pre-sentence custody and the impact of those conditions on the defendant. If the court finds that there is an adverse effect on the defendant flowing from the pre-sentence conditions, the sentence can be reduced further to reflect the added mitigation for the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration.[^23]
[62] Crown counsel submits that no additional credit should be given in excess of the credit granted pursuant to Summers. He says the Summers credit is to be awarded at 1.5:1 if the circumstances justify it. Those circumstances include both lost parole eligibility and the harshness of the conditions of pre-sentence custody.
[63] Crown counsel further submits that the Court of Appeal, in R. v. Omoragbon,[^24] provides at para. 32 that: “Enhanced credit for lockdown days is neither an entitlement nor routinely granted upon the filing of institutional records. In the absence of any adverse effect of the lockdown conditions on the appellant, enhanced credit is not warranted”. He submits that there is no evidence of any adverse effects on Mr. Groves-Bennett. I disagree.
[64] I have been advised that Mr. Groves-Bennett has been subject to 143 full or partial lockdowns due to staff shortages. I accept that there has been hardship suffered due to the lockdowns, most of which are not the fault of Mr. Groves-Bennett.
[65] Mr. Groves-Bennett spoke to Ms. Richards about the conditions of his pre-sentence incarceration. He stated as follows:
a. That the institution has been subject to numerous lockdowns resulting in “a lack of access to hygiene, which can endure for up to three days”.
b. There has also been a lack of programming.
c. The lockdowns have affected his mental health as there is little activity to distract him.
d. Visits from friends and family have not been permitted.
e. Mr. Groves-Bennett has reported that he had not observed any enhanced protocols for minimizing the risk of COVID-19 in the jail. He has concerns about exposure as there have been outbreaks in the institution.
[66] It is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has added stress through no fault of the inmates. I accept, as stated in R. v. Kandhai,[^25] that while, “The entire country is being told to avoid congregations of people. A jail is exactly that, a state mandated congregation of people … The situation, which has led to drastic measures in society at large, is bound to increase day to day hardship in prison and the general welfare of the prison inmates …”.
[67] There is no mathematical equation for calculating time to be credited as compensation for being incarcerated under harsh conditions, including lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic. After considering the material before me, including the capable submissions of counsel, I have concluded that a further credit of 7 months is warranted.[^26]
The Downes Credit
[68] In R. v. Downes, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that, where an accused is the subject of “stringent pre-trial bail conditions”, including time spent effectively under “house arrest”, this mitigating circumstance must be taken into account and given some weight in the sentencing of the accused.
[69] The Court of Appeal, in R. v. Ijam,[^27] gave some guidance as to what weight, if any, should be given to the presentence bail conditions. In order to get credit, the bail conditions should create a hardship or deprivation to the person.
[70] Counsel for Mr. Groves-Bennett submits that Mr. Groves-Bennett should receive some credit for a portion of the time he spent subject to house arrest prior to the breaches (i.e., from July 6, 2018 to June 1, 2019). I do not agree.
[71] First, the onus is on Mr. Groves-Bennett to demonstrate that the bail conditions created a hardship or deprivation to him. There is no such evidence. In fact, the opposite is true.
[72] In the pre-sentence report dated September 24, 2020, Mr. Groves-Bennett reported as follows:
… the last position he held was one year ago working at a Toronto night club as a promoter, server and cleaner and held this position nine months. The subject advised that while working at this night club he was also working at a music studio in Scarborough where he would record, write and engineer music while also taking care of janitorial duties.
[73] As stated above, the pre-sentence report is dated September 24, 2020. Since Mr. Groves-Bennett reports that a year prior he had worked for nine months, that would mean that he worked there in 2019 when he was under house arrest. As such, he completely disregarded the terms of his house arrest by working in the night club. Not only that, he jeopardized the $5,000 pledged by Ms. Renner (his surety), showing no respect for her.
[74] I am not satisfied that the house arrest conditions of his release had any adverse effect on Mr. Groves-Bennett. As such, I decline to exercise my discretion and give him credit pursuant to the principles in Downes.
Conclusion
[75] In conclusion, Mr. Groves-Bennett is sentenced to a global sentence of eight years, less three years of pre-sentence custody. This will require Mr. Groves-Bennett to serve a further five years in custody.
[76] The record of Mr. Groves-Bennett will be reflected as follows:
a. Robbery while armed with a knife: eight years less three years of pre-sentence custody for a further five years to serve.
b. Assault with a weapon: three years concurrent.
c. Fail to comply with recognizance: six months concurrent.
[77] The following ancillary orders are imposed:
(i) an order under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Groves-Bennett provide a sample of a bodily substance for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and storage in the national DNA database; and
(ii) an order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life.
Kelly J.
Released: May 6, 2021
court file no.: CR-19-50000472-0000
DATE: 20210506
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
Devonta Groves-Bennett
reasons for SENTENCE
Kelly J.
Released: May 6, 2021
[^1]: 2013 ONCA 147, aff’d 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 [^2]: 2016 ONCA 754 [^3]: 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555 (QL) (C.A.) [^4]: Ms. Richards prepared the report for the Sentencing and Parole Project, a non-profit organization that prepares enhanced pre-sentence reports for Black people marginalized by poverty and racial inequality. [^5]: Crown Counsel submits that the report authored by Ms. Richards is not objective. Amongst other things, when cross examined, Ms. Richards said her role was to provide Mr. Groves-Bennett’s perspective about his upbringing. Few of the negative findings made by others were included in the report. Despite these weaknesses, I observe that it is important to have reports of this nature filed when appropriate. That said, they must be objective in order to be meaningful. [^6]: These references are contained under the heading, “Assessment” commencing at para. 17 of Ms. Richards’ report. [^7]: B.A., M.A., PhD., M.D., F.R.C.P. (C) [^8]: See R. v. Nur, 2011 ONSC 4874, 275 C.C.C. (3d) 330, aff’d 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401, aff’d 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R 773 [^9]: See R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 80 [^10]: (2006), 2006 CanLII 40975 (ON CA), 216 C.C.C. (3d) 54 commencing at para. 13 [^11]: 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500, at para. 92 [^12]: 2018 ONSC 2527 [^13]: 2018 ONSC 5186 [^14]: 2020 ONSC 2365, [2020] O.J. No. 1648 (S.C.J.) [^15]: 2020 ONSC 3513 [^16]: See: R. v. Harriott, 2002 CanLII 23588 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 387 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 55 [^17]: (2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 172 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.) [^18]: (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.) [^19]: 2018 ONCA 211 [^20]: (2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 172 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 3 [^21]: See: R. v. Reesor, 2019 ONCA 901, at para. 8 [^22]: The actual credit is 28.15 months, but I have rounded up the credit to 29 months. [^23]: R. v. Duncan, at paras. 6 and 7 [^24]: 2020 ONCA 336 [^25]: 2020 ONSC 1611, at para. 7 [^26]: See R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188; R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779; R. v. O.K., 2020 ONCJ 189 and R. v. Abdella (as yet unreported decision of Kozloff J., 2020 ONCJ 1611) [^27]: 2007 ONCA 597, [2007] O.J. No. 3395 (C.A.)