Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-50000242-0000 DATE: 20220503 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – GARY JOHNSON

Counsel: Ron Kruger, for the Crown Elizabeth Bristow, for Mr. Johnson

HEARD: August 13, 2021 and April 20, 2022

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

Reasons for Sentence

Facts and Guilty Plea

[1] On August 31, 2020 the police executed a search warrant at Mr. Johnson’s residence and his car. They seized 0.1 grams of fentanyl from the car. They seized a Taurus 9mm handgun from the residence. The gun was in a fanny pack in the dresser of his bedroom. It was loaded with 7 rounds in the magazine. There were three loose rounds of .40 ammunition in the fanny pack. The police seized a magazine loaded with five 9mm rounds in a box in the bedroom. Mr. Johnson’s DNA was on the gun.

[2] Mr. Johnson was on bail at the time. He was facing charges of trafficking in cocaine. He subsequently pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced to 7 months in custody less 45 days of pre-sentence custody.

[3] On August 13, 2021 Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. He was arraigned on one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act. He pleaded not guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking but guilty to the lesser included offence of simple possession. The Crown accepted the plea.

Mr. Johnson’s Background:

[4] On application by the defence (and not opposed by the Crown) I ordered an enhanced pre-sentence report. The report discloses many difficulties and obstacles faced by Mr. Johnson.

[5] I will digress for a moment and say a word about enhanced pre-sentence reports. I have now been able to review some enhanced pre-sentence reports in different cases. They are usually very detailed and provide an in-depth examination of the background and circumstances of the offender. This report, like others I have seen, was helpful in placing Mr. Johnson’s circumstances and the offences in perspective. As any judge will tell you, sentencing is one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, part of the job. The enhanced pre-sentence reports do not make sentencing easier, but they provide a sentencing judge with information, and perspective, that – hopefully – that might otherwise not come before a sentencing judge. As the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, any information that assists is useful. I appreciate that these reports are quite resource-intensive, and I do not suggest that they should be ordered in every case. They always take more time to prepare than a regular pre-sentence report. That said, I would encourage the increased use of these reports, as resources allow.

[6] Mr. Johnson is 36 years old. He is Toronto born and raised. His parents both emigrated from Jamaica. Both had children from other marriages. They met in Toronto. Mr. Johnson is the sole child of that union. Both parents reported discord in the marriage. Both parents also experienced racism when they came to Canada.

[7] Mr. Johnson believes that his siblings were jealous of him and mistreated him because he was the biological child of both parents. Mr. Johnson also disclosed to the PSR writer that he was sexually abused by a sibling when he was a child. His mother reported to the PSR writer that Mr. Johnson had disclosed this abuse to her, although it is not clear when. Mr. Johnson reported that his father was abusive and alcoholic, but when Mr. Johnson was in his 20’s his father stopped drinking. That improved his behaviour and changed his relationship with his children.

[8] The family moved to the Jane and Weston area in 2015, when Mr. Johnson was 15 years old. The neighbourhood had higher levels of crime, drug use, and gun violence than other areas where the family had lived. Mr. Johnson reported to the PSR writer that he experienced violent encounters, which caused him to obtain a firearm for his personal safety. Mr. Johnson does not trust the police. He reported to the PSR writer that he believes that he was targeted because he was a Black man. He described encounters with the police to appear to have occurred for no reason. He also described an encounter where he was arrested by police at gunpoint because they confused him with someone else. He was released, but he found the experience terrifying.

[9] Mr. Johnson had a difficult relationship with the education system. At an early stage he was diagnosed with a learning disability. He was also diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. He reported to the PSR writer that his poor performance in school was due to his learning disability. He was placed in special education classes but he did not feel the school system properly accommodated him. Both he and his mother reported what they believe were some racist attitudes on the part of some of the school staff. In one incident, Mr. Johnson sustained a bruise, allegedly from the parent of another child. Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the principal. She believes they did not take it seriously. As the PSR writer wrote:

Ms. Johnson reported that she escalated the situation by contacting the police which the school did not like. She disclosed that a school meeting was organized where the police attended as well as the parent who assaulted Gary. Ms. Johnson reported that she was the only Black person in the meeting and found it to be imbalanced and unproductive because Gary was made to be the culprit. She advised that the police could not charge the other parent and expressed: “Imagine if I did that to her daughter?”, referencing the criminalization she would have experienced as a Black woman and likely would have been charged.

[10] As Mr. Johnson grew older, he found himself in conflict with the education system more often. He was suspended from time to time. One principal said that he would never amount to anything. He believes he was suspended and punished more often than his peers because he was Black. He was a very good artist and drawer, but his ability was never recognized, except when he enrolled at the private Avenue Road Art School. Although he played competitive basketball, and loved it, he left school in Grade 11. He is now five credits short of obtaining his high school diploma.

[11] Ms. Johnson believes that the education system failed Mr. Johnson as he never received the support he needed. She did not really know what or how to access resources to help him. She also believes that her attempts to advocate on behalf of her child resulted in a negative perception of her as an “angry Black woman.” Although it is impossible to verify the accuracy of Ms. Johnson’s belief, it certainly has the ring of truth, especially given the school meeting she described.

[12] Mr. Johnson’s employment history is spotty, at best. He currently supports himself on ODSP. He has worked in food service and in warehouses. He obtained his forklift licence and has worked as a forklift operator. His mental health and addiction challenges have made it difficult, however, for him to maintain steady employment. He did report to the PSR writer that he would like to return to work as a forklift operator. He also expressed an interest in working with children who have encountered barriers as he has.

[13] In 2011 Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with depression and co-morbid alcohol, cocaine, and opiate use. He has used Oxycontin and Percosets and combined both drugs with marijuana and alcohol. In 2017 Mr. Johnson began using methadone for his opiate addiction, but relapsed. He began using methadone in custody again. His mother believes that if he had not been arrested on these charges, he would have died of an overdose, possibly a fentanyl overdose. Although Mr. Johnson has been diagnosed with mental health issues, and has tried counselling, he has not seriously participated in mental health counselling or substance abuse counselling. He did report to the PSR writer that he wants to overcome these challenges and wants to take addiction and mental health counselling.

[14] Mr. Johnson has two daughters with different mothers. The mother of his oldest child (11 years old) reported to the PSR writer that she believes Mr. Johnson loves his daughter but he has been absent from her life for a long time. The mother of his youngest child (5 years old) obtained full custody after a dispute. Mr. Johnson has indicated that he hopes to build a relationship with his daughters when he is released from custody. No doubt his mental health and addiction issues have played a role in his absence from their lives.

[15] The PSR writer noted several studies that corroborate some of Mr. Johnson’s experiences. He did not have a strong relationship with his father. There is evidence that boys who have a strong positive male influence are more likely to achieve positive outcomes. There is also evidence that sexual abuse is obviously a source of trauma and shame that affects life-long well-being. Mr. Johnson’s experience with the education system is also borne out by studies mentioned by the PSR writer. For example, students labelled as under-achievers – something mentioned by Mr. Johnson –often belong to ethnic and racial minorities. Perhaps most tellingly, studies have noted that Black students are twice as likely to drop out of school as children of other racialized groups or white children.

[16] Ultimately, Mr. Johnson is, unfortunately, a person with low self-esteem, depression, and substance abuse problems. At this point in his life, he does not have the educational or employment skills that would help turn his life around, yet. There are many complex factors that go into making a person what he is, and no single factor will provide an explanation. Based on the material in the enhanced PSR, as well as Mr. Johnson’s affidavit, I find that mental health issues, family dynamics, and early sexual abuse, have all contributed to the substance abuse and consequent poor decisions that have tragically brought Mr. Johnson to this place. I also find that structural racism, especially in Mr. Johnson’s education, has also helped to bring Mr. Johnson to this point: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680. There is, however, hope for Mr. Johnson. I carefully reviewed the records attached to his affidavit. It is clear that he has been asking for help while in custody. He has asked for help from the social worker at the Toronto South Detention Centre. He has also asked for psychological help. He clearly recognizes that he has a problem – or problems – and recognizes that he needs to obtain help if he is to turn his life around.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:

[17] I will deal first with the mitigating factors in this case. The most important mitigating factor is, of course, the guilty plea. Mr. Johnson has taken responsibility for his actions.

[18] Aside from the standard credit of 1.5:1 for every day spent in custody (Criminal Code, s. 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575) I will treat the harsh conditions of custody (lockdowns, COVID restrictions) as a mitigating factor rather than as something to be a matter of mathematical calculation: R. v. Duncan, 2015 ONCA 928; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.

[19] Mr. Johnson reported to the PSR writer that his time in custody during a period of frequent lockdowns and the COVID pandemic has been “hell”. Mr. Johnson also filed an affidavit describing his time in custody. He kept his own record of lockdowns in a pocket calendar. He reported 111 full lockdowns and 214 partial lockdowns in 2021. He also reported 14 full lockdowns and 69 partial lockdowns from January 1 to April 5, 2022. Lockdowns mean limited access to showers, fresh air, counsel visits, video visits with counsel, and family visits. Mr. Johnson stated in his affidavit that after his arrest on August 31, 2020 he did not have a family visit until June 30, 2021, although obviously the pandemic played the major part in preventing in-person visits. Toronto South Detention Centre lockdown records from September 2, 2020 to December 7, 2021 were filed. The records indicate that there were 249 full or partial lockdowns during that time period. The lockdowns were almost always the result of staff shortages. As many judges in this court (including me) and in the Ontario Court of Justice have observed, the staff shortages are a chronic problem at Toronto South. The staff shortages have led to harsh conditions imposed on inmates, harsh conditions that have become an unacceptable form of punishment. And, it must be remembered, the majority of the inmates are awaiting trial and are considered innocent. The purpose of pre-trial incarceration is to protect the public. It is not supposed to be a form of punishment, but that is what it has become.

[20] In his affidavit, Mr. Johnson described his medical issues and his attempt to get help. To his credit, he has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. I say that is to his credit because vaccination not only protects the individual inmate, but also protects the inmate community. He has also asked for psychological counselling, recognizing that he has substance abuse and mental health problems.

[21] Later in these reasons, I will consider how to credit time for harsh conditions due to lockdowns and the COVID pandemic when I determine the appropriate sentence.

[22] A further mitigating factor is that Mr. Johnson does enjoy support from a variety of people. He has an admirably determined advocate – his mother – who has clearly never given up on him. Other members of his family are supportive. The mother of his oldest daughter expressed surprise that Mr. Johnson was caught up in such a serious offence as she has never known him to be in real trouble. Other family friends, including the minister at Mr. Johnson’s church, also expressed surprise. While all knew of Mr. Johnson’s troubles, none ever saw him as a danger to public safety or a person likely to get into trouble with the criminal justice system.

[23] I turn to the aggravating factors.

[24] Mr. Johnson’s criminal record is aggravating. Despite mental health, addiction, educational, and employment struggles throughout his life his encounters with the criminal justice system have actually been very limited. As well, his encounters with the system did not come about until later in his life. That is not a pattern that is commonly seen in the courts. In other words, Mr. Johnson has not led a long-term criminal lifestyle. While the record is aggravating, there are signs that rehabilitation may have a positive effect on him. For example, he has never been subject to community supervision.

[25] The Crown argues that Mr. Johnson was involved in trafficking drugs, and that he used the gun in his drug business. These facts would be seriously aggravating, if proven. The Crown must prove aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: Criminal Code, s. 724(3)(c). Prior to the execution of the search warrant, the police observed behaviour that they described as consistent with trafficking. The police observed Mr. Johnson make several short visits to people and take a short drive with another individual. Mr. Johnson is associated with members of the Five Point Generals, a Toronto street gang. Mr. Johnson admitted the association to the PSR writer. The Crown does not allege he was a member of the gang, and only alleges that Mr. Johnson was involved in low-level trafficking. He was on bail for another trafficking offence at the time of the execution of the warrant.

[26] Respectfully, I have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Johnson was trafficking drugs on the day of the execution of the warrant. I also have a reasonable doubt that he was using his gun for purposes associated with his drug business. I agree with the Crown that his actions were certainly suspicious, given the fact that he was out on bail for trafficking and that he was associated with gang members. The police certainly had enough information to obtain a search warrant, which they did. That said, the police only found 0.1 grams of fentanyl in Mr. Johnson’s car, not an amount consistent with trafficking (although it may be consistent with having sold the bulk of supply). The amount is consistent with personal use, and Mr. Johnson has an addiction problem. Moreover, the police did not find a large amount of cash – and presumably if Mr. Johnson had sold his stash he would have some. The police also did not find items typically associated with drug trafficking, even trafficking at a petty level – debt lists or a scale or baggies. There is also no evidence that Mr. Johnson was using his gun to enforce a drug debt or to menace customers who were considering not paying. I might well have taken a different view if the gun had been found in his car, on secreted on his person when he was arrested.

Position of the Crown and the Defence and Cases in Support:

[27] Mr. Kruger, for the Crown, seeks a four-year sentence less pre-sentence custody on the gun possession charge. He seeks a short concurrent sentence on the possession of the fentanyl. As he correctly points out, Mr Johnson’s explanation for why he needed the gun – self-defence – is simply unacceptable. It is a self-help remedy that ultimately makes the problem worse, not better. Mr. Johnson, sadly, has little rehabilitative potential given his job and educational history, and his lack of contacts with his daughters. In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, the Court of Appeal required sentencing judges to consider anti-Black racism as it affects sentence. Mr. Kruger argues in his very thorough memorandum that:

The Crown’s chief submission in this case, having regard to the evidence from the EPSR and Morris is that Mr. Johnson’s mental and physical health issues and experiences of racism must be considered in an appropriate sentence, but the circumstances in which the firearm was possessed in this case – as a tool for Mr. Johnson to protect himself when trafficking drugs – cannot diminish the gravity of the offence or the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

[28] While I do not agree with the Crown that it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Johnson used the gun as a tool to protect himself when trafficking drugs, I certainly agree that in any gun possession case there must be a significant role for general deterrence and denunciation.

[29] The Crown relied on R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, upheld by the Supreme Court: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15. As Doherty J.A. observed at para. 50 possession is criminal, “even if it is entirely untainted by any other unlawful activity.” Nur was a young first offender. He pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison.

[30] In R. v. Marshall, 2015 ONCA 692 the accused was a young first offender. He was found guilty after trial of possession of a handgun. He candidly acknowledged his involvement in the drug trade. The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 3 ½ years. In doing so, Cronk J.A. stated:

There can be no doubt that this type of crime, in the circumstances described above, is an offence at the "true crime" end of the s. 95 spectrum of offences described by this court in Nur. Denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public are unquestionably the paramount principles of sentencing implicated for such a crime.

[31] In R. v. Mansingh, 2017 ONCA 68 the offender was involved in low-level commercial marijuana trafficking in a neighbourhood plagued by guns and drugs. During the course of a police investigation the offender ran away and discarded an illegal handgun in a public place. Mr. Mansingh was a 26-year old first offender. The Court of Appeal upheld a 43 month sentence. (Note: I was the trial judge in that case.) In upholding the sentence, the Court stated:

… this court, and more importantly the Supreme Court of Canada, have repeatedly indicated that the kind of offences committed by the appellant require the imposition of substantial jail terms even if the offender is young and has no criminal record: see R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15 (S.C.C.). Cases from this court, referred to by the trial judge, support the position that the sentence imposed was within the established range for this kind of offence even when committed by a relatively young first offender. We observe, as did the trial judge, that the appellant not only fled from the police while armed with a loaded handgun, a very dangerous activity, he also threw that loaded weapon away in a place where it could easily have been found by a young child.

[32] The Crown relied on other cases. I need not analyze them all, but will mention some: R. v. Harutyunyan, 2012 ONCA 637 (four year sentence upheld); R. v. Griffith, 2019 ONSC 358 (Global sentence of six years for possession of a firearm, breaching a firearms prohibition order, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking); R. v. Dehaney, 2012 ONSC 3014 (global sentence of 7 years for possession of a firearm and drug trafficking in association with a criminal gang).

[33] Ms. Bristow, for Mr. Johnson, argues that Mr. Johnson should receive a global sentence in the range of 2-3 years. She further argues that when pre-sentence custody is calculated, he is in a time-served position. She also filed several cases in support of her position. Again, I need only refer to a few.

[34] In R. v. Filian Jimenez, 2014 ONCA 601 the offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun. He had the gun for “protection” as shots had been fired at his home. The Court of Appeal upheld an 18-month sentence. The offender had repudiated his gang membership, pleaded guilty early in the process, and had fundamentally changed his lifestyle. The Court stated that it was “clearly a very low sentence” but found no error by the sentencing judge.

[35] In R. v. Marfo, 2020 ONSC 5663 a search warrant was executed at the offender’s residence. After an unsuccessful challenge to the warrant, facts were read in. The facts established that the offender was guilty of possession of 7.12 grams of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a loaded Glock handgun with two overcapacity magazines. The offender had experienced anti-Black racism, as well as crime and violence. When he was 24 his brother and close friend were both shot and killed. He said that he obtained the firearm for “protection”. Ducharme J. sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 24 months, less pre-sentence custody.

[36] In R. v. Prosser, 2014 ONSC 6466, the police executed a search warrant at the offender’s residence. They seized a .25 semi-automatic pistol, ammunition, 81.78 grams of powder cocaine, as well as cash and scales. As in Marfo, after an unsuccessful challenge to the warrant, facts were read in. The sentencing judge, Wilson J., found that the offender was a drug dealer who used the gun for protection, although the offender testified that he carried the gun for protection because he had been shot in the chest previously. He was a young first offender. Wilson J. sentenced him to two years and six months, less pre-sentence custody.

[37] Ms. Bristow also submitted R. v. Jama, 2018 ONSC 1252. The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited handgun. He was arrested while carrying the gun in a public place. He had a criminal record and was on bail for a charge of robbery when he was arrested. I was the sentencing judge in that case. I found that the possession of the gun in a public place was highly aggravating. Mr. Jama had previously been shot and felt he needed a gun for his own protection. I rejected that contention and sentenced Mr. Jama to 3 years in the penitentiary.

[38] In my respectful view, the usual sentence for possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code is in the range of two to four years. Certainly, a penitentiary sentence is the starting point. Cases at the lower end of the range are reserved for first offenders who are not carrying the weapon in public or using it for a nefarious purpose, such as to protect a drug trafficking business. Obviously those cases where an offender is on bail for another offence, or carries or abandons the firearm in public, or uses it in conjunction with drug trafficking will attract a sentence at the higher end of the range. Cases such as Filian Jiminez, where a reformatory sentence was imposed, are reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Sentence Imposed:

[39] The Court of Appeal has emphasized time and again that the key principles in cases of illegal firearms possession are denunciation and deterrence. In Nur, Doherty J.A. noted that possession of a gun contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code is itself a true crime. He went on at para. 206 to describe the spectrum of offenders:

The scope of s. 95 is best understood by considering the range of potential offenders caught by that section. At one end of the spectrum stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade. By any reasonable measure, this person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public. At the other end of the spectrum stands the otherwise law-abiding responsible gun owner who has possession of an unloaded restricted or prohibited firearm, but with readily accessible ammunition stored nearby. That person has a licence and registration certificate for the firearm, but knowingly possesses the firearm at a place that falls outside of the terms of that licence. That person's conduct may well pose little, if any, risk to others. I would characterize that misconduct as more in the nature of a regulatory offence.

[40] As I have stated, the most serious gun possession cases are those involving using a firearm in conjunction with other criminal activity, such as drug trafficking; or moving about with a firearm in public, or transporting it in public, or abandoning it in a public or semi-public place, as happened in Mansingh. That is when firearms pose the most extreme danger to public safety. It is those cases that should attract the highest sentences.

[41] Possession of an illegal handgun – even for “personal protection” as Mr. Johnson claimed – although now recognizes as wrong-headed – still constitutes a danger to public safety. In our society nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – requires an illegal firearm for personal protection. If you carry an illegal handgun, even for perceived defensive reasons, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is no evidence that Mr. Johnson has ever received even a moment of firearms safety training. He probably has no idea how to properly clean and strip a firearm and make it safe. Under those circumstances it is as much a danger to himself as it is to others. Furthermore, if he were ever in an actual gunfight it is probably more likely that he would shoot a bystander rather than the person he was aiming at. Tragically, this city has experienced many real-world examples where exactly that has happened. The notion, often advanced in these courts, that a person needs an illegal handgun for protection is, quite simply, utter nonsense. It ought never to be given serious consideration. I give it no consideration whatsoever now, and it is to Mr. Johnson’s credit that he now recognizes this.

[42] An exemplary sentence is called for in this case, although not a sentence at the very top of the range. Mr. Johnson was not moving about in public with the firearm and did not abandon it in public when he encountered the police – situations of extreme danger. As noted, for a first offender that range continues to be anywhere from two to four years.

[43] Mr. Johnson has now spent 476 days in custody attributed to these charges. At 1.5:1, that equates to 714 days in custody, or 23.8 months – just under two years.

[44] Mr. Johnson has been subject to harsh conditions while in custody: R. v. Duncan. These conditions are the result of serious staff shortages at the detention centre, which have led to numerous partial and full lockdowns. These conditions are properly taken into account as mitigating factors: R. v. Marshall. The COVID 19 pandemic, and the consequent difficult conditions of incarceration, is also a mitigating factor: R. v. Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365.

[45] I do balance deterrence and denunciation with rehabilitation. Although deterrence and denunciation must play the primary role, I do believe that rehabilitation must play a role in this case. The enhanced PSR and the material filed by Ms. Bristow describe a man who has faced numerous obstacles, including institutional racism, but during his stay at the Toronto South Detention Centre he has taken steps that show he recognizes his problem, and wants to get help. In my view, a sentence of three years, less pre-sentence custody, recognizes and balances the sentencing principles. I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to reduce the mitigating factor of harsh conditions of imprisonment to a mathematical calculation in this case: R. v. Marshall at paras. 52-53. The real question is what to do with Mr. Marshall at this point.

[46] In respectful view, there is no principle of sentencing that requires Mr. Johnson to spend more time in custody at this point and he will be sentenced to 1 day in custody, or realistically a time-served sentence when I take all of principles of sentencing into account as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors. At this point, I believe that a time served sentence, which is the equivalent of a global three-year sentence, satisfies those principles. In my view rehabilitation in this case is best served by the imposition of a period of probation. It is my intention that the period of probation be seen primarily as rehabilitative rather than as punitive. Accordingly, the probation order will emphasize counselling for mental health, addiction, and employment. These orders should not set up an offender to fail, so I will not impose conditions that prohibit alcohol or drugs, although there will be a condition that Mr. Johnson not possess any weapons.

[47] Mr. Johnson is therefore sentenced as follows:

• On the count of possession of a firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, 1 day in custody, with pre-sentence custody noted as the equivalent of three years;
• On the count of possession of fentanyl contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 1 day in custody, with pre-sentence custody noted as the equivalent of 60 days, concurrent to the s. 95(1) count;
• There will be an order that Mr. Johnson submit a sample of his DNA;
• There will also be an order that Mr. Johnson be prohibited from possession of a firearm for life, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

[48] Mr. Johnson will be placed on probation for three years, applicable to both counts. In addition to the usual statutory terms, Mr. Johnson will:

• Report to a probation officer within three business days of his release from custody;
• Not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code;
• Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
• Reside at an address approved of by his probation officer and notify his probation officer within three days of any move;
• Take employment, mental health, and/or substance abuse counselling as required by his probation officer; and,
• Sign any releases or waivers required so that his probation officer can monitor his attendance and participation in programs as required by his probation officer.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: May 3, 2022