COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000213-0000
DATE: 20210716
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
Brandon boodram
Defendant
Matthew Shumka, for the Crown
Michael Owoh, for the Defendant
HEARD at Toronto: June 18, 2021
REASONS FOR sentence
DAVIES J. (Orally)
A. Overview
[1] Mr. Boodram stabbed Michael Hill repeatedly in the abdomen, back, ribs, neck and head during an altercation that started on a TTC bus. Mr. Boodram also stabbed Mr. Hill’s girlfriend, Jessica Wylie, three times as she tried to intervene.
[2] Mr. Boodram pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in relation to the attack on Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. He pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of Mr. Hill. After a short trial, I found Mr. Boodram guilty of attempted murder.
[3] The Crown now seeks a sentence of 16 to 18 years in custody. The defence argues that the appropriate sentence in this case is six years in custody.
[4] I find that the appropriate sentence in this case is nine years in custody on the attempted murder charge less credit for pre-sentence detention and three years in custody on the aggravated assault charge to be served concurrently.
B. Range of Sentence for Attempted Murder
[5] Every sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, s 718.1. Attempted murder requires proof of intent to kill, which is the most morally blameworthy state of mind in Canadian law: R. v. Adamson, 2018 ONCA 678 at para. 119. Nevertheless, the sentences for attempted murder vary widely because attempted murder can be committed in a variety of different ways. At the low end of the range, the Court of Appeal has approved a six-year sentence: R. v. Cham, 2011 ONCA 330. At the high end, life sentences have been imposed: R. v. Holder, 2018 ONSC 5370, R. v. Malcolm, 2013 ONCA 451.
[6] The Crown and defence both filed several cases to support their respective position. I will review some of those cases to demonstrate the sorts of circumstances that fall within the sentence range proposed by the Crown and those that have attracted sentences in the range proposed by Mr. Boodram.
[7] At the top of the range, the court imposed a 17-year sentence in R. v. Campbell, 2018 ONCJ 736. Mr. Campbell stabbed his co-worker 14 times in the head and neck. Mr. Campbell planned the attack. He drove to their place of employment with the intention of killing the victim. When he arrived, Mr. Campbell walked directly to the victim’s workstation and stabbed him repeatedly. The victim lived but was permanently disabled and required 24-hour care. Mr. Campbell was experiencing delusions at the time of the offence. Mr. Campbell believed that the victim was harassing him at work and at home. The sentencing judge found that the attack itself was sufficiently brutal to justify a life sentence. However, the court imposed a 17-year sentence because Mr. Campbell’s mental illness reduced his moral culpability.
[8] In R. v. Tan, 2008 ONCA 574, the Court of Appeal upheld a 15-year sentence. Mr. Tan pleaded guilty to attempted murder, forcible confinement, robbery and sexual assault. The trial judge described the offences as “cruel, brutal, terrorizing and horrific.” Mr. Tan wanted to be in a relationship with the victim but she rejected him. This enraged Mr. Tan. He bound her hands and feet and covered her mouth with tape. He drove the victim to a remote location. He sexually assaulted her, slit her throat and stabbed her in the chest. He dragged the victim into the bush, covered her with a tarp and left her to die. The Court of Appeal held that the 15-year sentence was a high sentence, particularly because Mr. Tan pleaded guilty and had no criminal record. Nonetheless, the Court found that the sentence was justified because the offence occurred in the context of an unrequited intimate relationship, it involved significant planning and it lasted for several hours. The Court also considered the nature of the injuries and the lasting physical and psychological impact of the attack on the victim.
[9] In R. v. Adamson, 2018 ONCA 678, the Court of Appeal upheld a 13-year sentence. Mr. Adamson was a 19-year-old first offender. He was found guilty after a trial of attempting to kill his pregnant girlfriend. Mr. Adamson broke into his girlfriend’s house at night and cut her throat. The trial judge identified several aggravating factors, including the fact that the offence was planned, involved a home invasion, occurred when the victim was pregnant and had a very significant impact on her and her family. The Court of Appeal held that while a 13-year sentence for a youthful first offender was a substantial sentence, it was did not offend the principle of proportionality.
[10] In R. v. Nazir, 2020 ONSC 4991, the sentencing judge imposed a 13-year sentence. Mr. Nazir was convicted after a jury trial. Mr. Nazir stabbed his sister-in-law 17 times with a kitchen knife. Mr. Nazir also threatened to kill and dismember two other family members who escaped his attack by barricading themselves in a bathroom. Mr. Nazir was intoxicated at the time of the attack. The court described the attack as brutal and vicious. The Court also noted that all three victims were terrorized and traumatized by the attack. The Court held that a 15-year sentence would have been within the range but imposed a 13-year sentence to account for the mitigating factors including Mr. Nazir’s expression of remorse, his ongoing support in the community and his commitment to address the underlying causes of his criminal conduct.
[11] In R. v. Charles, 2014 ONSC 211, the Court imposed a mid-range sentence of 10 years. Mr. Charles and Mr. Renous were found guilty after a trial. They attacked the victim with a baseball bat and then stabbed him 32 times. There was no apparent motive for the attack. The attack was premeditated. Mr. Charles and Mr. Renous were waiting for the victim and attacked him outside his home. The attack only stopped when a neighbor came out of his home to investigate the noise. Mr. Charles and Mr. Renous both had criminal records. The Crown urged the court to impose a life sentence. The defence argued that a sentence in the range of six to eight years was appropriate. The Court found that six to eight years would not reflect the gravity of the offence or the culpability of Mr. Charles and Mr. Renous. The Court also found that a life sentence was not warranted because Mr. Charles and Mr. Renous had good rehabilitative prospects and did not pose an ongoing threat to public safety. Given the extreme violence and the level of premeditation, the court imposed a ten-year sentence.
[12] In R. v. Smith, 2010 ONCA 229, the Court of Appeal upheld a 10-year sentence. Mr. Smith was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder and aggravated assault. Mr. Smith hired the victim to do some web design work. During an argument over project delays, Mr. Smith stabbed the victim eight times in the back. The blade of the knife broke during the attack and was embedded in the victim’s spine. The victim was left permanently disabled. At trial, Mr. Smith testified. He admitted that he stabbed the victim but said he was acting in self-defence. Mr. Smith had no criminal record. The sentencing judge found that the offence was out of character. The Court of Appeal held that the fact that Mr. Smith was a first offender and the offence was not pre-mediated tended to push his case towards the lower end of the range. However, the Court accepted the sentencing judge’s finding that a sentence in the middle of the range was justified because of the nature of the injuries inflicted and the impact on the victim.
[13] At the low end of the range, the Court of Appeal upheld a 6-year sentence in R. v. Cham, 2011 ONCA 330. Mr. Cham was convicted after a trial of attempted murder and uttering a death threat. Mr. Cham attacked the victim with the machete during an argument. Mr. Cham argued he was acting in self-defence. The trial judge ruled there was no air of reality to Mr. Cham’s defence. Mr. Cham appealed his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal agreed there was no air of reality to the self-defence claim. The Court also held that the six-year sentence was appropriate because Mr. Cham was young, had no criminal record and cooperated with the police.
[14] While these cases offer guidance on how I should exercise my discretion in fashioning a fit sentence in this case, sentencing remains a highly individualized exercise: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 at 43. Mr. Boodram’s sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of his crime and his moral blameworthiness having regard to the unique constellation of mitigating and aggravating factors in his case.
C. Aggravating Factors
[15] There are several important factors that increase the gravity of the attack and Mr. Boodram’s level of culpability.
[16] First, the nature and number of stab wounds inflicted by Mr. Boodram make this a particularly serious offence. Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill 16 times in the side, neck, back and head. Mr. Hill is very lucky to have survived. Mr. Boodram’s attack on Mr. Hill was also persistent. Mr. Boodram continued to stab Mr. Hill after Mr. Hill fell to the ground. Mr. Boodram did not even stop when Ms. Wylie intervened.
[17] Second, the circumstances of the attack are very troubling. Mr. Boodram stabbed a complete stranger who was just trying to stop him from abusing his girlfriend. At trial, Mr. Boodram admitted that he stabbed Mr. Hill because he was angry that Mr. Hill was interfering in his business. In other words, Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie were attacked for standing up for and protecting a victim of domestic violence. Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie should have been commended for their courage, not violently attacked.
[18] Third, the attack has had a profound impact on both Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. In his victim impact statement, Mr. Hill wrote that his life has not been the same since the attack. For many months, he could not take care of himself or his young son. Mr. Hill had suicidal thoughts. He struggled to find a reason to live. Mr. Hill had three surgeries after the attack and is waiting for another surgery to repair an abdominal hernia. Mr. Hill still has weakness in his left arm and is in constant pain from his injuries.
[19] Ms. Wylie has post-traumatic stress disorder from the attack. She used to be an outgoing person who loved new experiences and adventures. Now, she experiences severe anxiety when she is in public. She is hyper-aware of her surroundings. She has flashbacks to the day of the attack and to the feeling of Mr. Hill’s blood on her hands. Ms. Wylie put her education on hold after the attack to care for Mr. Hill. She also had to work extra hours to support them because Mr. Hill was off work for eight months. Remarkably, Ms. Wylie said the attack by Mr. Boodram would not stop her from intervening to help someone in the future, which is a testament to her resilience and her character.
[20] Mr. Boodram’s attack on Mr. Hill must also have been traumatic for all the passengers on the bus who witnessed it.
[21] Fourth, Mr. Boodram has a criminal record. In 2017 he was convicted of aggravated assault. He has also been convicted of breach of bail and theft of a motor vehicle. Mr. Boodram was on probation at the time of this offence. While Mr. Boodram’s record is not lengthy, this is not his first crime of violence. Mr. Boodram is, therefore, not entitled to the credit given to youthful first offenders.
[22] Finally, the Crown argued that a sentence at the high end of the range is justified because the attack on Mr. Hill was planned and premeditated, not impulsive. It is important to distinguish between forming the intent to kill and forming a plan to kill. Intent to kill is an essential element of attempted murder. It is not an aggravating factor on sentence: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras. 42 – 44. However, if the attack was planned and premeditated, that can be an aggravating factor on sentencing: R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709 at para. 112. The extent to which planning and premeditation are aggravating factors will depend on the nature of the plan.
[23] I agree with the Crown that the attack on Mr. Hill was not completely spontaneous. However, the events leading up to the stabbing happened very, very quickly. Mr. Hill verbally confronted Mr. Boodram for the first time at 6:05:10 p.m. The confrontation escalated quickly. At 6:05:53 p.m., Mr. Hill pushed his belly into Mr. Boodram. A few seconds later, Mr. Hill head-butted Mr. Boodram. Mr. Boodram and Mr. Hill then stood forehead to forehead shouting at each other. At 6:06:45 p.m., Mr. Hill shoved Mr. Boodram twice in the chest causing Mr. Boodram to stumble backwards. Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill approximately 30 seconds later. During that 30 seconds, Mr. Boodram unclipped the knife from the waistband of his shorts and unfolded the blade. Mr. Boodram hid the knife from Mr. Hill for a few seconds as the argument continued. Mr. Boodram then stabbed Mr. Hill in the side. Mr. Boodram admitted at trial that he deliberately stabbed Mr. Boodram in the side with as much force as he could to maximize the impact.
[24] Mr. Boodram testified that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill. I rejected his evidence on this point. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Mr. Boodram did not plan to hurt Mr. Hill, or anyone else, when he got on the TTC bus that day. The stabbing occurred in the context of the argument. Mr. Boodram used a weapon he had on him at the time. The whole altercation lasted less than two and a half minutes. While Mr. Boodram had some time to think about his actions, any plan he made was formed within a matter of seconds.
[25] Each case relied on by the Crown involved a significant degree of planning or premeditation. The degree of planning in this case is minimal. This fact distinguishes Mr. Boodram’s case from Campbell (where the defendant decided to kill his co-worker and drove to their place of employment to carry out the attack), Tan (where the defendant drove the victim to a remote location three hours from Toronto before sexually assaulting her and slitting her throat), Adamson (where the defendant broke into his girlfriend’s house at night and cut her throat) and Charles (where the defendants planned the attack and lay in wait for the victim). The absence of any significant premeditation takes Mr. Boodram’s case out of the high end of the range proposed by the Crown.
D. Mitigating Factors
[26] There are also several important mitigation factors that I must consider in fashioning the appropriate sentence in this case.
[27] First, Mr. Boodram pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assaulted. He admitted that he stabbed Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. As a result, Ms. Wylie was spared from having to testify. Mr. Boodram is entitled to some credit for his guilty pleas and for the admissions he made. However, Mr. Boodram had a trial on the issue of whether he intended to kill Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill was required to testify at trial and relive the attack in detail during his testimony. The fact that Mr. Boodram pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder is not an aggravating factor. It simply means Mr. Boodram is not entitled to the full credit he would have received if he pleaded guilty to all counts.
[28] Second, Mr. Boodram has taken responsibility for his conduct and expressed remorseful for the harm he caused Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. Mr. Boodram wrote a letter of apology to Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. He says he feels like he owes a debt he will never be able to repay but he is trying to make amends. He wrote that he regrets what he did and is truly sorry for the “pain and agony” he put them through. In his letter, Mr. Boodram commits to turning his life around and helping others avoid making the same mistakes he has made. The Crown argues that Mr. Boodram’s statement of remorse has less significance because Mr. Boodram described his behaviour as a “mistake” and “irrational” rather than admitting he intended to kill Mr. Hill. I accept that Mr. Boodram is truly sorry for stabbing Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. I accept his letter of apology as a genuine recognition of the harm he caused and a sincere expression of his remorse.
[29] Third, Mr. Boodram has good rehabilitative potential. Mr. Boodram has successfully completed several programs and workshops while in custody. Mr. Boodram completed a 10-week communications course through Centennial College. The program coordinator described Mr. Boodram as respectful, courteous, humble and thoughtful. She wrote, “He is an enthusiastic learner who enjoys class and has never missed a session.” In July 2019, Mr. Boodram completed a 10-hour substance abuse workshop. This is significant because Mr. Boodram had been drinking on the day of the attack on Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie. The pre-sentence report says that Mr. Boodram now realizes he was abusing alcohol and drugs to manage his emotions. Mr. Boodram has completed other educational session while in custody on addiction, changing habits and managing emotions. He also completed a 10-hour anger management workshop.
[30] Mr. Boodram also participated in spiritual counseling with Reverend Carter at the Toronto East Detention Centre. Rev. Carter wrote a letter of support for Mr. Boodram. Rev. Carter says that his sessions with Mr. Boodram focused on self-discovery and emotional resilience. Rev. Carter described Mr. Boodram as very open about his personal history, current reality and hopes for the future.
[31] I also received a letter from a case manager at the Yonge Street Mission. The Yonge Street Mission provides comprehensive support to young people on probation and parole to help them address the root cause of their involvement in the criminal justice system. Mr. Boodram took the initiative to contact the Yonge Street Mission while in custody to discuss his long-term goals and plan the supports he will need when he is released from custody.
[32] Mr. Boodram also has a supportive family. According to the pre-sentence report, Mr. Boodram has a good relationship with his mother, his sister and his grandparents. Mr. Boodram’s sister describes him as loving and supportive. His sister visited him in the jail regularly until family visits were cancelled because of COVID-19. Mr. Boodram’s grandfather told the pre-sentence report writer that Mr. Boodram has shown lots of remorse for his conduct. His grandmother says that she and the rest of Mr. Boodram’s family are his “well wishers” and will continue to support him when he is released.
[33] Mr. Boodram’s commitment to addressing his substance use and anger management is to be commended. He deserves credit for using his time in custody as productively as possible given the restrictions during the pandemic. I am satisfied that Mr. Boodram has good rehabilitative prospects. He is motivated to address the issues that contributed to his decision to stab Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie and to change his life.
[34] Finally, Mr. Boodram has experienced very difficult conditions in pre-sentence detention. Defendants who experience conditions that are more difficult or punitive than the restrictions normally associated with pretrial detention are entitled to credit beyond what is provided for in the Criminal Code: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754. However, the credit for onerous conditions should not be deducted from the sentence imposed. Rather, the onerous conditions is a factor to be considered together with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at an appropriate sentence: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at paras. 50 – 53.
[35] Mr. Boodram was first detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre following his arrest on May 27, 2019. Mr. Boodram was moved to the Toronto South Detention Centre on February 20, 2020 and stayed there for six and a half months. Mr. Boodram has been back at the Toronto East Detention Centre since September 5, 2020.
[36] Mr. Boodram experienced 66 full or partial lockdowns during his short time at the Toronto South Detention Centre. All but seven of the lock-downs at the Toronto South Detention Centre were caused staff shortages. While some lock-downs are to be expected, repeated lockdowns because of inadequate staffing are completely unacceptable. Mr. Boodram experienced 55 full or partial lockdowns at the Toronto East Detention Centre. The number of lockdowns, particularly at the Toronto South Detention Centre, is troubling.
[37] The bigger issue, though, is that Mr. Boodram has been in cusotdy throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Boodram provided an affidavit about his experience in custody during the pandemic. Mr. Boodram says the conditions have been “unlivable”. He describes how programs, non-urgent medical care, family visits and lawyer visits have been suspended or restricted. Mr. Boodram describes how difficult it has been for him to have only limited contact with his family. Mr. Boodram says that he has experienced significant anxiety and depression during the pandemic. He is also having nightmares. Mr. Boodram was housed in a medical until from September 2020 to February 2021 and was then placed in a supportive care unit. He says that he is trying his best to “keep it together and hold on to hope” despite the difficult conditions.
[38] I accept Mr. Boodram’s description of the conditions in the institutions and the impact those conditions have had on him. COVID-19 has caused widespread fear and anxiety. Mr. Boodram has had to live through that fear and uncertainty in custody with very limited contact with his family, his lawyer and others who could have supported him. Mr. Boodram has also had to live through all the restrictions that were put in place in the institutions to try to stop the spread of COVID-19. The COVID-19 restrictions on programs and other services within the institutions and the psychological toll of the pandemic go well beyond the restrictions normally associated with pre-sentence detention. This is an important factor in assessing the appropriate sentence in this case.
E. Fit Sentence for Mr. Boodram
[39] Deciding what sentence is appropriate is not easy. On the one hand, Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill on a crowded bus just because Mr. Hill was trying to stop Mr. Boodram from abusing his girlfriend. The attack on Mr. Hill was violent and unrelenting. It caused Mr. Hill serious physical and psychological injury. It also caused Ms. Wylie profound and lasting psychological harm. As a result, Mr. Boodram’s sentence must denounce his conduct in the clearest of terms. It must also deter Mr. Boodram and others from committing similar acts of violence. A 6-year sentence, as proposed by the defence, is not adequate to denounce Mr. Boodram’s conduct. The gravity of this offence and Mr. Boodram’s level of culpability require something more than a sentence at the low end of the range.
[40] On the other hand, Mr. Boodram has taken responsibility for his actions, has expressed genuine remorse for the harm he caused, and has taken positive steps to address his addiction and anger issues. While the attack was not spontaneous, it involved minimal planning and deliberation. A sentencing in the range of 16 to 18 years proposed by the Crown would be excessive in those circumstances.
[41] I find that a mid-range sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Boodram’s level of responsibility.
[42] The facts of this case are most similar to Smith, in which the Court of Appeal upheld a 10-year sentence. Both cases involved repeated stabbings that occurred in the course of an argument. Both cases resulted in serious, permanent injuries. And in both cases, the accused admitted they stabbed the victim. Mr. Smith had no criminal record, which is an important mitigating factor that is not present here.
[43] However, the circumstances of Mr. Boodram’s offence are less serious than in Charles, where a 10-year sentence was also imposed. In Charles, the defendants were found guilty after a jury trial. The defendants denied any involvement in the attack. The attack in Charles was planned and without any apparent motive. These are important factors that are not present here. Mr. Boodram admitted he stabbed Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie and has expressed genuine remorse for his action. His attack on Mr. Hill occurred very quickly in the course of an argument. Like the defendants in Charles, Mr. Boodram was relatively young at the time of the offence, just 26 years old, and has good rehabilitative prospects.
[44] I find that Mr. Boodram is entitled to a shorter sentence than was imposed in Charles because he has taken responsibility for his conduct and has already taken steps to address the underlying cause of his criminal behaviour. Mr. Boodram is also entitled to credit for the exceptionally hard conditions he has endured in pre-sentence detention, a factor that was not present in Charles. I find that a nine-year sentence for the attempted murder of Mr. Hill would reflect the very serious nature of the offence and Mr. Boodram’s culpability while also accounting for the mitigating factors.
[45] Mr. Boodram is also sentenced to three years in custody for the aggravated assault on Ms. Wylie. The range of sentences imposed in aggravated assault cases is very wide. In exceptional cases, the court will grant a non-custodial sentence. Cases in the middle of the range attract sentences between 18 months and two years. These cases tend to involve first-time offenders and often involve an element of excessive force during an otherwise consensual fight. On the high end, courts have imposed sentences in the range of four- to six-years imprisonment. Cases at the high end generally involve defendants with a prior record of violence, or an unprovoked or premeditated attack: R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677 at paras. 27 – 30.
[46] There are several elements of the attack on Ms. Wylie that pushes it towards the higher end of the range. Although the attack on Ms. Wylie was not premeditated, it was unprovoked and violent. Mr. Boodram stabbed Ms. Wylie as she intervened to stop the attack on her boyfriend. Ms. Wylie tried to take the knife from Mr. Boodram as he was swinging it at Mr. Hill. Ms. Wylie was stabbed three times, twice in the left hand and once in her abdomen. Of course, Mr. Boodram is entitled to significant credit for pleading guilty to the aggravated assault on Ms. Wylie. As a result, she was not required to testify at trial. On balance, I find a three-year sentence is appropriate for the attack on Ms. Wylie, which will be concurrent to the sentence on the attempted murder charge.
F. Pre-trial Credit
[47] Mr. Boodram has been in custody since his arrest on May 26, 2019. He has spent 782 days in pre-sentence detention. Mr. Boodram has already received credit for 92 days of his pre-sentence custody on another charge. He is, therefore, entitled to credit for 690 days of pre-sentence detention on these charges.
[48] The parties agree that Mr. Boodram is entitled to one and a half days credit for each day he spent in pre-sentence custody. Mr. Boodram’s sentence on the attempted murder charge will be reduced by 1035 days (or 2 years, 10 months and 5 days).
G. Conclusion and Ancillary Orders
[49] Mr. Boodram is sentenced to a further 6 years, 1 month and 25 days in custody on the attempted murder of Mr. Hill (nine years less 1035 days). Mr. Boodram is sentenced to three years in custody on the aggravated assault on Ms. Wylie to be served concurrently.
[50] In light of my verdict on the attempted murder charge, the finding of guilt registered after Mr. Boodram’s guilty plea to aggravated assault on Mr. Hill is stayed. A defendant cannot be found guilty of more than one offence arising out of the same wrongful act: Kineapple v. R., 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 SCR 729 at 751.
[51] Mr. Boodram is required to provide a sample of his DNA for forensic analysis: Criminal Code, s. 487.051.
[52] Mr. Boodram is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for the rest of his life: Criminal Code, s. 109(2).
[53] Mr. Boodram is prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly by any means with Mr. Hill during his sentence except for the purpose of any hearing under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act or with the Mr. Hill’s written consent. Mr. Boodram is also prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly by any means with Ms. Wylie during his sentence except for the purpose of any hearing under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act or with the Ms. Wylie’s written consent: Criminal Code, s. 743.21(1).
___________________________ Davies J.
Released: July 16, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000213-0000
DATE: 20210716
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
Brandon boodram
Defendant
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Davies J.
Oral Reasons Delivered: July 16, 2021