COURT FILE NO.: 87/22
DATE: 2022/08/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
KEIRON GREGORY
S. Monaghan and L. Ducharme, for the Crown
C. Demelo, for the Defendant
HEARD: July 18, 2022
GRACE J. (Orally)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
A. Introduction
[1] During the early morning hours of June 21, 2020, the lives of William Horrace and Keiron Gregory intersected for the final, tragic time.
[2] Their meeting occurred within a residence at 232 Pochard Lane, London, Ontario. Mr. Gregory and three others initiated an encounter Mr. Horrace had no reason to expect.
[3] Mr. Gregory and his associates arrived carrying two baseball bats and two loaded guns. At about 4:43 a.m., they gained entry to the basement of the home through a rear window they had broken. As one might expect, Mr. Horrace was asleep. So was his former romantic partner Joyce and their two young children. A house guest was also present.
[4] The invited visitor had been using the basement washroom at the time. He confronted the intruders. He was struck in the face with a handgun, threatened with death and relieved of his cell phone.
[5] A prolonged violent battle with the badly outnumbered, unarmed and unclothed Mr. Horrace soon followed. The ending was almost predictable. Mr. Horrace was shot in the chest at close range as the group of combatants moved toward the main entrance of the home. While the identity of the person who discharged the weapon has not been established, Mr. Gregory acknowledges that, in law, he is as responsible for the firing of the weapon as if he had been the shooter.
[6] On July 18, 2022, Keiron Gregory plead guilty to two offences: first, breaking and entering into and committing the offence of robbery while within the residence; and second, causing the death of William Horrace and thereby committing the offence of manslaughter, contrary to ss. 348(1)(b) and 236(b), respectively of the Criminal Code.
[7] Based on the agreed statement of facts read into the record, findings of guilt were made and convictions entered. Victim impact statements and reference letters were introduced into the record. Able and helpful submissions on sentence were made. Decision was reserved until today.
B. The Circumstances of the Offences
[8] The circumstances of the offences are described in detail in the agreed statements of facts. For present purposes a brief summary will suffice.
[9] Mr. Gregory and Mr. Horrace met for the first time on June 17, 2020. They got together again the following evening at a Toronto hotel, along with two others. At that time, Mr. Gregory handed over about $80,000 in Canadian currency, relying on Mr. Horrace’s representation that he could turn the investment into “easy money”.
[10] Where a young man then only twenty-two years old obtained such a sum is unknown. The imagination of some might swirl.
[11] It did not take long for Mr. Gregory to realize that the promised transaction was too good to be true. Efforts to reach Mr. Horrace using the cell phone number Mr. Gregory possessed were unsuccessful. However, Mr. Gregory had one other avenue. He had recorded the licence plate of the motor vehicle Mr. Horrace had been driving when they first met.
[12] Mr. Gregory asked his father, a police officer with the Toronto Police Service, for assistance. Through that source, Mr. Gregory learned of the Pochard Lane address.
[13] During the early morning hours of June 20, 2020, he travelled to London. As a result of an erroneous entry into his navigation system, Mr. Gregory and an unknown associate first broke into a residence at 32 Orchard Street. Some items of personal property were taken from that location. Soon afterward, he realized that he had gone to the wrong address.
[14] Mr. Gregory returned to the Greater Toronto Area where he enlisted the help of additional persons. Captured from the cell phone he left behind at the scene was an ominous video. It showed a Glock-style handgun wedged between the driver’s seat and centre console of the vehicle he was driving.
[15] As mentioned, four armed men broke into and entered the Pochard Lane home early in the morning on June 21, 2020. Mr. Gregory was one of those individuals. They had arrived in two vehicles.
[16] A neighbour observed the group. They wore hooded sweatshirts. Small gym bags were being carried. Licence plate details were recorded. A 911 call was made.
[17] By the time police officers arrived, the confrontation I have briefly described had reached a conclusion.
[18] It was a fierce and brutal conflict. In the first phase of the struggle, Mr. Horrace was struck with a baseball bat multiple times. After a brief pause, the melee continued. Several bodies fell through a glass table in the living room. Mr. Horrace was shot in the chest at close range as the group moved toward the front door of the residence. While able to exit the home and seek assistance from a neighbour, Mr. Horrace succumbed to his injuries.
[19] Mr. Gregory and the other assailants fled. They took with them an unknown amount of cash. They left behind a number of items including a baseball bat and notably, an iPhone belonging to Mr. Gregory and based on subsequent DNA analysis, some of Mr. Gregory’s blood.
[20] It turned out that somehow Mr. Gregory had suffered a gunshot wound of his own: a bullet had entered and exited his wrist.
[21] Police encountered two vehicles fleeing the area when they responded to the 911 call. Due to their high speed, officers terminated the pursuit.
[22] Subsequent investigation revealed that one of the vehicles – a Nissan Altima - had been rented in Mr. Gregory’s name from Hertz in Toronto. The other – stolen from a Peel Region location in December 2019 - was found several days later near Bradford, Ontario. According to the agreed statement of facts, it had been “burnt to the ground”.
[23] Forensic pathologist Dr. Edward Tweedie concluded that the gunshot wound to the chest caused Mr. Horrace’s death. He also sustained multiple lacerations to his head. Two orbital bones were fractured.
[24] On July 14, 2020, a vehicle in which Mr. Gregory was a passenger was stopped in North Bay, Ontario. Officers from three police services were involved in the defendant’s arrest.
[25] He provided a voluntary, exculpatory statement the following day. In reference to the killing of Mr. Horrace, Mr. Gregory said, “All I know is I’m innocent”. That was, of course, a false claim.
C. The Circumstances of Keiron Gregory
[26] The defendant was born on February 5, 1998. He was 22 years-old at the time of the offences and is now 24.
[27] Mr. Gregory’s immediate family is comprised of his mother, Sara, father Trevor and a younger brother. His mother and father were born in Nigeria and Jamaica, respectively
[28] After earning a high school diploma, Mr. Gregory briefly attended Humber College. In addition to working with his mother in her line of work and operating his own business engineering and producing music, the offender volunteered at a basketball training camp, at a day camp for kids and at a local library.
[29] I was told there are no mental health, alcohol or drug issues affecting the accused. He is said to be anxious to continue his education while in and after being released from custody. Mr. Gregory’s current desire is to pursue a career in business when able, with real estate being a possibility.
[30] The defendant is well supported by family and well beyond as evidenced by the many reference letters the court received.
[31] It was apparent in the courtroom too. His mother and brother were present. So, too, were grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins Trevor Gregory would have been here but for this matter and a criminal case in which he is a party. I recognize that the various charges have made it impossible for this accused to have any recent relationship with his father. They have also disrupted the entire family unit.
[32] Earlier in the proceeding, Mr. Gregory had been released with the support of five sureties and on strict bail conditions. The defence acknowledges that Mr. Gregory was the subject of an allegation he breached the terms of his release but noted that the charge was to be withdrawn as a result of the guilty plea entered during the last appearance.
[33] I was told that while in custody, the offender has been a model inmate. He has been a server on his range, recently been promoted to full-time laundry duty, participated in the chapel program when available and completed courses offered on topics such as goal setting, changing habits and problem solving.
[34] Seventeen letters of support were filed. Many were written by relatives.[^1] Persons who have taught, coached or worked with the accused added their voices.[^2] Friends joined in too.[^3] I have reviewed all of them.
[35] They paint a glowing picture of Mr. Gregory. He has been blessed with a good mind and gifted with athletic talent.
[36] Mr. Gregory’s mother said her son was much loved by all who know him. She described him as a man who makes people laugh. An uncle[^4] expressed the view that compassion, kindness, loyalty, determination, intelligence and grit are attributes the accused possesses.
[37] Educators and coaches praised him. A former teacher[^5] described him as a “very special student and person” and a “leader”.[^6] Another[^7] said Mr. Gregory possessed a strong moral compass. A camp director[^8] observed that the defendant “was a natural when it came to caring for his campers.” It was clear to the program director at Hoops Canada,[^9] that Mr. Gregory “felt a strong sense of responsibility for his peers” and that he “did his absolute best to make life better for them.”
[38] A contemporary[^10] said Mr. Gregory was “polite, caring, well-mannered and reliable”.
[39] Almost all writers expressed disbelief that the person they described could have been involved in the crimes Mr. Gregory has admitted committing. Some have sought to lay blame at the feet of others who were thought to have influenced the defendant.
D. Victim Impact
[40] The court received victim impact statements from several relatives of Mr. Horrace, including a brother (Professor Larmena) and sister (Princess Bestman). Mr. Larmena described Mr. Horrace as cheerful and a good father. Ms. Bestman said that the victim was her best friend and closest sibling. They spoke, she said, every day. He would have but could not, walk her down the aisle when she married.
[41] I reviewed a statement provided by Mr. Horrace’s former romantic partner, Melinda Wildeboer. While saying the death of Mr. Horrace had left her quite depressed, her son William, was of more concern. She said his academic performance had declined due to depression and anxiety. He had withdrawn from friends and family.
[42] William provided additional details in his statement. Concentration and focus were now difficult. Certain events trigger feelings of jealousy and anger because he used to enjoy them with his father. Christmas, summer vacations, even football games, are no longer sources of joy. Valued family relationships on the paternal side have been lost. In part, William wrote:
I now suffer from depression and anxiety attacks. I am over-sensitive to everything and stay in fight or flight mode. I carry guilt that I wasn’t there and could have helped my dad…
[43] His former spouse, Joyce Horrace, read her victim impact statement aloud. As noted, Joyce Horrace was in the Pochard Lane residence at the time of the attack, along with her children Royce and Kobe, then aged nine and four-years old respectively. Ms. Horrace’s report was written on their behalf too. Two notes from Kobe were provided as well.
[44] Ms. Horrace was in the living room at the time of the altercation. While Royce remained hidden in the downstairs bedroom in which he had been sleeping, Kobe briefly entered the living room at one point and was able to describe some of the features of one of the assailants to the police. Most of us, including me, cannot adequately imagine the terror they must have felt.
[45] Sadly, that endures. Ms. Horrace reported recurring nightmares. She said Kobe is no longer able to sleep alone. She described Mr. Horrace’s death as untimely, unexpected and devastating for her and for the children. From now on, Father’s Day is a grim reminder of an incident that turned their lives upside down. A once safe residence is now a place to be avoided. No more experiences with a much-loved father will be shared again.
E. The Applicable Legal Principles
[46] As noted, convictions have been registered in respect of two offences: (i) manslaughter (s. 236; and (ii) break, enter and robbery (s. 348(1) (b)). The maximum sentences are life imprisonment.[^11]
[47] The statutory purpose and principles of sentencing are set forth in the Criminal Code.
[48] The fundamental purpose of a penalty imposed 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: CC, s. 718.
[49] The punishment imposed is to have one or more of the listed objectives. They include: (i) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by the unlawful conduct; (ii) to deter the offender and others from committing offences; (iii) where necessary, to separate offenders from society; (iv) to assist in rehabilitating offenders and (v) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done: CC, s. 718.
[50] Several legislated principles apply. I will mention three of them. First and perhaps most importantly, a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: CC, s. 718.1. Second, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances: CC, s. 718.2. Third, a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: CC, s. 718.2(b).
[51] Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing: R. v. Ipelee, 2012 SCC 13, at para. 61. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R. v. Ipelee, supra, at para. 37:
Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord to the various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality…First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice system….
Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender. In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other.
[52] The process is highly individualized. The sentence imposed must be “tailored to the individual offender and the specific offence.”[^12]
[53] I have reviewed the numerous authorities cited by the defence[^13] and the Crown.[^14] Counsel readily acknowledge, no two cases are the same. As Boswell J. aptly said in R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654 (S.C.J.), at para. 43:
No one sentencing principle or purpose trumps the others. In each case, the weight to be put on the individual objectives varies depending on the facts and circumstances of the offence and of the offender.
[54] While deterrence and denunciation are important, the prospect of rehabilitation is of significance too. What can play no part in the analysis or conclusion is vengeance.
F. Position of the Parties
[55] The parties agree that two ancillary orders must be made. I will mention them in a moment. They also agree that a concurrent custodial sentence is appropriate for the break, enter and robbery count in the indictment (count two). They also agree that Mr. Gregory is to receive credit for each day of pre-trial custody totaling four hundred and twenty-seven (427) days to the date of the last attendance, plus a further forty-three days to today, at the rate of 1.5:1. By my calculation, that credit totals seven hundred and six (706) days (641 days to July 18, 2022, plus a further 65 days to today).
[56] Counsel for Mr. Gregory also asks for a credit of ninety (90) days on account of the two hundred and thirty-seven (237) days the defendant was on house arrest. The total credit sought by the defendant is, therefore, seven hundred and thirty-one (731) days.[^15] The Crown opposes that request.
[57] The primary source of disagreement is the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction. The underlying principles are not in dispute. However, the parties emphasize different aspects of the relevant circumstances of this case. Counsel for Mr. Gregory submits that a custodial sentence of eight (8) years is appropriate. The Crown seeks a term of imprisonment in the range of twelve (12) to fourteen (14) years.
G. Ancillary Orders
[58] Two mandatory ancillary orders must be made. First, because Mr. Gregory has been convicted of primary designated offences, orders are hereby made in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.[^16]
[59] Second, Mr. Gregory shall be subject to a prohibition order under ss. 109(1). In light of the nature of and circumstances surrounding the offences, I agree with the Crown that a lifetime ban is to be imposed.[^17]
H. Custodial Disposition - Analysis and Decision
[60] That brings me to the crucial question. What is the length of the custodial term that is appropriate in this case?
[61] I have already mentioned many of the principles applicable to and objectives of sentencing. In R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, a five-member panel of the Court of Appeal provided this useful instruction:
Proportionality is the fundamental and overarching principle of sentencing. The other sentencing principles set out in s. 718.2 must be taken into account and blended in a manner which produces a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentence which does not comply with the proportionality principle is an unfit sentence…[^18]
[62] The exercise has two components: first, an assessment of the seriousness of the offence and second, the degree of responsibility of the defendant: R. v. Morris, supra, at paras. 67 and 87. As the Court said in R. v. Morris, supra, at para. 107, the analysis:
…reflects the individualized offence and offender-specific approach to sentencing that has always held sway in Canadian courts.
[63] Convictions have been entered in respect of very serious offences. A setting that was peaceful, calm, safe and seemingly, secure, was turned into a battleground. The sanctity of a home was shattered. An unarmed 44-year-old man was beaten and then shot. His life was extinguished.
[64] In submissions on behalf of the Crown, Mr. Monaghan used two words to describe the circumstances of the offences that resonate. Those words were stark and horrifying.
[65] Mr. Gregory resorted to aggression in an effort to recoup the substantial amount of money he had obtained from unknown sources and then given to a person he barely knew in an effort to profit from a scheme that, unsurprisingly, turned out to be fictional.
[66] Offences involving violent home invasions and the use of weapons must be denounced and deterred in the strongest terms.[^19] The need to express society’s outrage at such conduct and to discourage any like-minded individual from engaging in it should be obvious. Street justice is not something any society should ever tolerate. Whatever may be said about Mr. Horrace, it must be remembered that a previous romantic partner and two small children were in the Pochard Lane residence at the time these offences were committed.
[67] This is not a case involving impulsive actions by a young man. They were the foreseeable result of a series of events that started when Mr. Gregory sought out the address attached to a licence plate he had recorded when first meeting Mr. Horrace.
[68] The fact he did not contact his father, a police officer, to report a crime is telling.
[69] Mr. Gregory admitted that he played a primary role in the killing of Mr. Horrace.[^20] He also agreed that he “contemplated violence upon entering the home and foresaw that the entire venture carried a significant risk of serious injury.”[^21] To be clear, the defendant initiated and participated in deadly home invasion, with three others he recruited. What occurred is beyond disturbing. It is bone-chilling.
[70] Ms. Demelo asked the court to consider the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 when considering the appropriate sentence. The reasons of the unanimous Court opened with the following comment:
It is beyond doubt that anti-Black racism, including both overt and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continues to be, a reality in Canadian society and in particular in the Greater Toronto Area.[^22]
[71] At para. 13, the panel summarized the conclusions they reached. They wrote:
· The trial judge’s task in sentencing is to impose a just sentence tailored to the individual offender and the specific offence in accordance with the principles and objectives laid out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code;
· Social context evidence relating to the offender’s life experiences may be used where relevant to mitigate the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence and/or to assist in the blending of the principles and objectives of sentencing to achieve a sentence which best serves the purposes of sentencing as described in s. 718;
· The gravity or seriousness of an offence is determined by its normative wrongfulness and the harm posed or caused by that conduct in the circumstances in which the conduct occurred. Accordingly, unlike when assessing the offender’s degree of personal responsibility, an offender’s experience with anti-Black racism does not impact on the seriousness or gravity of the offence;
· Courts may acquire relevant social context evidence through the proper application of judicial notice or as social context evidence describing the existence, causes and impact of anti-Black racism in Canadian society, and the specific effect of anti-Black racism on the offender;
· Consistent with the rules of admissibility, a generous gateway for the admission of objective and balanced social context evidence should be provided;
· The Gladue methodology does not apply to Black offenders. However, that jurisprudence can, in some respects, inform the approach to be taken when assessing the impact of anti-Black racism on sentencing.
[72] While there are a number of mitigating circumstances in this case, I am of the view systemic racism is not one of them. I have seen no evidence that anti-Black racism explains, at all, the commission of the offences that bring the accused before this court.[^23] An offender in the position of Mr. Gregory need not show a causal connection between his actions and the negative effects of anti-Black racism. As the Court of Appeal has said, however,
There must…be some connection between the overt and systemic racism identified in the community and the circumstances or events that are said to explain or mitigate the criminal conduct in issue.[^24]
[73] In reaching that conclusion, I have not forgotten the submissions made on Mr. Gregory’s behalf in reply. While not in evidence, I am prepared to accept that the offender’s parents started life in Canada modestly in the Jane and Finch area of Toronto and that they worked exceedingly hard to achieve all that they now possess.
[74] Respectfully, however, that early history, does not, of itself, explain how this defendant turned onto and followed such a dark and destructive road. Mr. Gregory’s moral blameworthiness is very high: R. v. Khan, 2022 ONSC 410 (S.C.J.), at para. 130.
[75] The defendant’s behaviour is even more difficult to understand after reading seventeen glowing reference letters. An uncle described Mr. Gregory as a “gentle and compassionate person at the core” and conceded those qualities made the “current situation difficult to reconcile with his character.”[^25] Nana Bediako-Amoah, one of the defendant’s former high school teachers, spoke about the “countless conversations about life in general and the legacy we all aspire to leave behind” she had enjoyed having with him. Jermain Holness, a program director at Hoops Canada, said Mr. Gregory’s support had allowed many young boys to accomplish things that otherwise would not have been achieved.
[76] While supportive and helpful, the reference letters evidence the fact that even those closest to Mr. Gregory missed whatever it was that lead him to behave in a manner they had not observed and could not imagine. There is a disturbing gap the current record does not fill.
[77] Some have sought to lay blame at the feet of others who were thought to have influenced the defendant. They are welcome to hold that view. Respectfully, however, it is not one I am able to reach. The assertion lacks any evidentiary support.
[78] Nonetheless, there are several important mitigating circumstances in this case. Mr. Gregory is a young man. He has accepted responsibility for his actions as evidenced by his guilty plea. He took the opportunity to address the court during the last attendance. He expressed remorse and rightfully, shame. These are his first criminal convictions. He has the love and support of family, friends and many others he has come to know along the way at school, during his athletic career and while volunteering. Mr. Gregory is intelligent, prosocial, athletic and in so many ways, gifted. When addressing the court, the defendant said he was humbled by the breadth and level of support he had received. He should be. I am of the view, there is a very real prospect of rehabilitation. With dedication and perseverance, Mr. Gregory may well make important and enduring contributions within and well beyond his community.
[79] There are aggravating circumstances as well. Two of them are set forth in the Criminal Code. Evidence that an offence has had a significant impact on the victim falls into that category: CC, s. 718.2(a) (iii.1). So, too, does the fact that Mr. Gregory broke into, entered and committed the offence of robbery within a dwelling house he knew was occupied and used violence toward an inhabitant: CC, s. 348.1. The actions underlying the charges laid seriously undermine the community’s sense of safety and security in their homes.[^26]
[80] Deterrence and denunciation are very much in play.
[81] During submissions I asked counsel whether Mr. Gregory’s refusal to identify the others involved was an aggravating circumstance. It is not. It plays no part in the calculus: R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854, at para. 29.
[82] I mentioned earlier that the defence seeks a credit on account of the time Mr. Gregory was out of custody while facing these charges.
[83] In R. v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (Ont. C.A.), Rosenberg J.A. explained the underlying rationale. At para. 29 he wrote in part:
Stringent bail conditions, especially house arrest, represent an infringement on liberty and are, to that extent, inconsistent with the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. House arrest is a form of punishment, albeit of a different character than actual incarceration. Pre-sentence house arrest varies little in character from the house arrest that is often imposed as a term of a conditional sentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code...
[84] The onus is on the offender to supply the court with information as to the impact of the conditions: R. v. Downes, supra at para. 37.
[85] The record is thin in that respect. However, given the nature of the charges, I accept that the conditions were stringent and limited Mr. Gregory’s ability to carry on normal relationships, employment and other activity: R. v. Downes, supra, at para. 37. While my calculation of the actual credit is at odds with that of Mr. Gregory’s counsel, I agree that one-third of the agreed upon period is appropriate. The actual credit is seventy-nine (79) days.
[86] To Mr. Horrace’s family, I offer the court’s profound and heartfelt sympathy. I understand your pain, although I fully recognize that I cannot, do not and never will fully appreciate the magnitude of the disbelief, the anger, the pain or the sorrow you felt and still feel. I know that time is not a cure. Nor will any sentence I impose. Deep wounds leave scars that never fully heal. Please try, as best you can, to live the lives Mr. Horrace wanted for you. Do not forget the past but do not let it control you.
[87] In her reference letter in support of the accused, Sara Gregory wrote “I understand that not everyone’s life matters to everyone”. That appears to be an unfortunate truth. However, every life matters to the court. Whatever others have said or will say about Mr. Horrace, the court has heard from family members who saw and experienced qualities that made them love him very much. They are exactly right. What he endured on June 21, 2020, was not justified. He did not deserve to die.
I. Conclusion – Appropriate Custodial Period
[88] This is a truly tragic case. So many lives have been badly and permanently damaged. Responsibility for that fact lies exclusively with the defendant.
[89] After careful consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offences, their gravity, Mr. Gregory’s legal responsibility for his actions, their impact on the family members of Mr. Horrace, the personal history, present situation and prospect of rehabilitation of Mr. Gregory, applicable mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the purpose and principles of sentencing as drawn from the authorities and the Criminal Code, I have concluded the following is a fit, proportional and just custodial sentence:
a) In respect of count one (manslaughter), Mr. Gregory shall serve a custodial sentence of ten (10) years, less a credit for pre-trial custody of seven hundred and six (706) days (470 days at the rate of 1.5:1) and less a further Downes credit of seventy-nine (79) days. The resulting aggregate credit is seven hundred and twenty (785) days, leaving a balance of two thousand, eight hundred and thirty (2,865) days or 7.849 years to serve;
b) In respect of count two (breaking and entering and committing the offence of robbery), Mr. Gregory shall serve a concurrent custodial sentence of two and a half (2 and 1/2) years.
J. Addendum – Non-Communication order
[90] At the conclusion of reading the above reasons, the Court was also asked by the Crown to make a non-communication order under s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, in relation to a list containing fifteen (15) names. The requested order was unopposed by Mr. Gregory insofar as twelve (12) of those persons are concerned but he asked and the Crown agreed that the order should only apply to three (3) of the persons listed for so long as they face criminal charges arising from the events of June 20, 2020 (the 32 Orchard Street break-in)[^27] or the aftermath of the Pochard Lane incident.[^28] That temporal limitation is acceptable to the court and applies to Nathaniel Harris-Gelinas, Tianna Almeida and Tera Amoatemah. The s. 743.21 order applies to the balance of the names on the list provided to the court during the period of time Mr. Gregory is in custody.[^29]
“Justice A.D. Grace”
Grace J.
Delivered: August 30, 2022
[^1]: They were, Sara Gregory (mother), Trevor Sr. and Barbara Gregory (paternal grandparents), Oshoma Momoh, Kaviv Momoh, Jason Gregory and Michael Burnell (uncles)Jineane Baldwin and Sarah Gregory (aunts),
[^2]: They were, Andre Bobb, Nana Badiako-Amoah, Mario Angers and Martin Gordon (former teachers), Bobby Freeman (camp director), Jermain Holness (program director).
[^3]: They were Dean Andrade, Hyacinth Armstrong and Navaz Qadeer.
[^4]: Oshoma Momoh
[^5]: Andre Bobb.
[^6]: Nana Bediako-Amoah said he was “highly dependable when placed in leadership roles.”
[^7]: Martin Gordon.
[^8]: Bobby Freeman.
[^9]: Jermain Holness.
[^10]: Dean Andrade.
[^11]: See ss. 236(b) and 348(1) (d).
[^12]: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 56.
[^13]: R. v. Clarke, 2003 CanLII 28199 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1966 (C.A.); R. v. Jones-Solomon. 2015 ONCA 654; R. v. Ali, 2018 ONSC 5536 (S.C.J.); R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854; R. v. Chal, 2020 ONSC 6654 (S.C.J.); R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654 (S.C.J.); R. v. Khan, 2022 ONSC 410 (S.C.J); and R. v. Tsega, 2021 ONSC 4651 (S.C.J.); R. v. Baksh, 2016 ONSC 2486 (S.C.J.); R. v. Clarke, 2012 ONSC 2776 (S.C.J.); R. v. Funes, 2015 ONSC 5729; R. v. Gidhay, 2014 ONCJ 465 (O.C.J.); R. v. Hanan, 2020 ONSC 1209 (S.C.J.); R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654 (S.C.J.); R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089; R. v. Lee, 2021 ONSC 7672 (S.C.J.); R. v. Moreira, 2021 ONCA 507; R. v. Tahir, 2016 ONCA 136; R. v. Warner, 2019 ONCA 1014; and R. v. Webber, 2013 ONSC 997 (S.C.J.).
[^14]: R. Ahnert, 2014 BCCA 212; R. Al-Rubayi, 2020 ONSC 7416 (S.C.J.); R. v. Badhesa, 2019 BCCA 70;
[^15]: 711 days was the number quoted by Mr. Gregory’s counsel during her submissions. I believe a mathematical error was made.
[^16]: The order is made pursuant to ss. 487.04 and 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.
[^17]: Until the conclusion of my reasons I had understood that the parties agreed a lifetime prohibition order was statutorily required. However, the Crown observed that given the lack of a criminal record, the order would operate for a period of ten years only unless the court was satisfied a lifetime ban was more appropriate. After hearing brief submissions, I acceded to the Crown’s submission.
[^18]: At para. 61.
[^19]: R. v. Danvers, (2005), 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 78.
[^20]: See para. 60 of the agreed statement of facts.
[^21]: The excerpt is drawn from para. 60g of the agreed statement of facts.
[^22]: At para. 1.
[^23]: See, R. v. Borde, (2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.) at para. 32 and the cases that have applied it, including R. v. Rage, 2018 ONCA 211, at paras. 13-14 and R. v. Morris, supra, at para. 98.
[^24]: R. v. Morris, supra, at paras. 96-97.
[^25]: The excerpt is drawn from the letter written by Oshoma Momoh.
[^26]: See, too, R. v. Araya, 2015 ONCA 854, at para. 26.
[^27]: That involves Nathaniel Harris-Gelinas.
[^28]: Same involves Tianna Almeida and Tera Amoatemah.
[^29]: Those persons are Joyce, Royce, Kobe and William Horrace Jr., Derrick Sherman, Thomas Fawcett, Sharon Ashman, Kevin Pinto, Christina Shaw, Princess Bestman, Professor B. Larmena and Melinda Wildeboer.