COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-50000037-0000

DATE: 20220124

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Adam Schultz for the Crown

• and -

KYLE ALLEGRO

Marco Forte for Mr. Allegro

HEARD: December 14, 2021.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

CORRICK J.

Introduction

[1] At the opening of his trial, Mr. Allegro pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance. The nature of the substance was not particularized in the count. Mr. Allegro admitted the essential elements of the offence, including that the substance was one listed in Schedules I or II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”). The nature of the substance was in dispute. Counsel agreed that I would determine the nature of the substance based on the evidence heard at trial.

[2] Following a trial, I found Mr. Allegro guilty on September 16, 2021, of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA and s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Allegro appears before me today for sentencing.

[3] Mr. Schultz submits that the fit sentence in all the circumstances of this case is three years in prison. Mr. Forte submits that a conditional sentence of two years less a day plus probation for two years is appropriate in the circumstances.

Circumstances of the Offence

[4] While Mr. Allegro was incarcerated in the Donnacona Institution, a federal penitentiary in Quebec, police intercepted his telephone conversations between March and June 2018. The conversations revealed that he and a friend, Jason Sewell, were in the drug business together. Mr. Sewell sold the drugs on the street. He kept Mr. Allegro up to date on the progress of sales.

[5] The evidence established that their operation involved the sale of up to 2.5 ounces of cocaine. Mr. Allegro and Mr. Sewell discussed the sale of up to two ounces of cocaine to “Debo,” and a further half ounce to someone from North Bay. There was a commercial aspect to the operation. Mr. Allegro shared in the profits.

[6] Mr. Allegro’s role in the business is not altogether clear. He discussed specific sales and his share of the profits from those sales with Mr. Sewell. The evidence established however that Mr. Sewell had a larger drug trafficking enterprise that did not involve Mr. Allegro.

Circumstances of the Offender

Personal Background

[7] Mr. Allegro is 24 years old. He was born on March 18, 1997. He and his three sisters were raised by their single mother in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood in Toronto. His father has never been a part of Mr. Allegro’s life. His mother was often unemployed, and the family suffered economically as a result. His mother had an alcohol problem and struggled with mental health issues related to financial insecurity, stress, and anxiety.

[8] When he was 8 years old, Mr. Allegro was sent to live in a group home at his mother’s request. A year later, he was sent home and lived with his mother or his grandmother.

[9] Mr. Allegro started drinking alcohol and using marijuana when he was 12 years old. He used both regularly by the time he was 14. His relationship with his mother was strained, and he became detached from his family. He turned to the street to find a sense of belonging, and soon fell under the influence of older men, becoming enmeshed in their world of violence, drugs, and criminality. By June 2012, at the age of 15, Mr. Allegro was in custody, having committed serious criminal offences. He grew up in prison. Except for eight months in 2013, Mr. Allegro spent his formative years in prison. He was paroled in October 2018, when he was 21 years old. He was recommitted in September 2019 and released on bail on December 21, 2020.

[10] For a young man, Mr. Allegro has a very serious criminal record. It begins in 2013. The particulars are as follows:

2013-06-28

Youth Court

(1) careless storage of firearm, weapon, prohibited device or ammunition

(2) poss. of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

(3) poss. of proceeds of crime

(4) poss. of Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking

(1 – 3) time served (12 months, 18 days) & probation on each charge concurrent

(4) time served (12 months, 18 days) & probation 3 months consecutive & mandatory prohibition order s. 109

2015-10-08

Youth Court

(1) armed robbery

(2) careless use of firearm, weapon, prohibited device or ammunition

(3) poss. of firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized

(1 – 3) 2 years & 1year supervision in the community and mandatory weapons prohibition

2015-10-08

Youth Court

(1) assault peace officer

60 days & 1month supervision in the community

2016-04-27

assault bodily harm

1 year consecutive & mandatory weapons prohibition

2017-08-10

assault peace officer

90 days consecutive

2020-03-31

fail to comply recognizance

time served (15 days credit for 10 days pre-sentence custody)

2020-12-21

aggravated assault

23 days intermittent (credit for equivalent of 792 days pre‑sentence custody)

[11] As his record shows, after spending more than a year in custody, the first entry on Mr. Allegro’s criminal record was made when he was 16 years old. The subsequent entries are for offences of violence except for the breach of recognizance conviction in 2020. The Crown led evidence about the details of those convictions. It can be summarized as follows.

[12] On November 11, 2013, Mr. Allegro participated in an armed home invasion robbery with two other men. Mr. Allegro was armed with a revolver, which he fired twice as he fled. Mr. Allegro was 16 years old at the time. This event led to the convictions in October 2015.

[13] On February 5, 2014, police officers saw Mr. Allegro trespassing in an apartment building. As he fled from police, Mr. Allegro threw a metal shopping cart, striking one of the officers in the upper thigh. He was convicted of assaulting a peace officer in October 2015.

[14] Not quite seven months later, Mr. Allegro was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. While serving his youth sentence, he punched a female Youth Officer in the eye causing very severe injuries. The victim suffered a broken nose and cheek, fractured orbital bone, a severe concussion and damage to her vision. She required plastic surgery. Another officer present at the time suffered from a sore shoulder.

[15] Following his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm, Mr. Allegro was transferred to a federal penitentiary. He was 19 years old.

[16] While in Collins Bay Institution, Mr. Allegro struck a correctional officer several times in the head and neck after the officer refused Mr. Allegro’s request to open his cell door. Mr. Allegro was convicted of assault peace officer on August 10, 2017 as a result of this incident.

[17] Mr. Allegro was convicted of breach of recognizance on March 31, 2020, after he was found in possession of a cell phone contrary to the conditions of a judicial interim release order. He was on parole at the time.

[18] The final conviction on Mr. Allegro’s record arose from the brutal beating of a fellow prisoner by three men, including Mr. Allegro, on October 18, 2019, in the cells of the courthouse. The beating was captured by a surveillance camera. Mr. Allegro did not initiate the fight, but joined in, kicking, and punching the victim in the face and body, even as he lay defenceless on the floor of the cell. The victim suffered a fractured orbital bone, which required surgical intervention. After receiving credit for 792 days of pre-sentence custody, Mr. Allegro was sentenced to 23 days to be served intermittently. He served that sentence without incident.

[19] On December 21, 2020, Mr. Allegro was released on bail under the supervision of one of his sisters, Ms. Downey. He has been under house arrest unless he is in the presence of his sister. He has been subject to electronic monitoring and has been prohibited from possessing a cell phone or any electronic device capable of accessing the Internet unless under the direct supervision of his sister. He has complied fully with the terms of his release.

[20] In February 2021, he was offered a part-time position at Lotmore Inc., a company owned by his brother-in-law. He was unable to interact personally with customers because of the terms of his house arrest, which made it difficult to perform his job as a customer service representative. Mr. Forte advises that the job is still available to Mr. Allegro this spring if he is in a position to undertake it.

[21] Being released in December allowed Mr. Allegro to reunite with his sisters, from whom he had been separated for approximately seven years. His sisters are pro-social people who do not tolerate the lifestyle Mr. Allegro was leading. They have guided, encouraged, and motivated him to change his life. Each of them wrote a letter to the court detailing the changes they have witnessed in Mr. Allegro over the past year.

[22] Mr. Allegro also wrote a letter describing the effect that reuniting with his family has had on him. He also addressed the court. He has come to appreciate the importance of his family and is determined to change in order to preserve the bonds he has forged with them since being released from jail.

[23] Mr. Allegro has set some long-term goals for himself. He hopes to become an electrician. With his sister’s financial assistance, he applied to and was accepted by Sheridan College in the Electrical Techniques program. He did not complete the first semester for reasons I will explain later. He can defer his enrollment until his sentence is satisfied.

[24] Mr. Forte submits that when considering the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Allegro, the court ought to consider the effects of poverty and systemic racism. Poverty and instability figured prominently in his early life, moving between group homes and the custody of his mother and his grandmother. He grew up in an impoverished racialized neighbourhood with no positive male role model. The men he turned to as a young black teen glorified the gangster lifestyle and enticed him into their world, providing him with a gun and drugs at the age of 14 or 15. Sadly, his trajectory from these circumstances into the penitentiary is one too often seen by this court.

[25] Mr. Schultz does not disagree that this is a mitigating feature of this case. As he described it, Mr. Allegro did not really have a chance from a young age.

[26] I am required to consider Mr. Allegro’s background and the environment in which he grew up when determining the appropriate sentence. To ignore them would be contrary to the requirement that “sentencing judges engage in an individualized assessment of all of the relevant factors and circumstances, including the status and life experiences, of the person standing before them.”[^1]

[27] The Ontario Court of Appeal recently noted “that an offender’s life experiences can include societal disadvantages flowing from systemic anti-Black racism in society and the criminal justice system.” [^2] The Court recognized that such life experiences can influence the choices made by offenders and can explain in part why an offender committed the offence.

[28] Mr. Allegro’s background and personal circumstances do not mitigate the seriousness of the offence he has committed. They are, however, relevant to his degree of responsibility,[^3] which is important in determining a proportionate sentence. Proportionality must be determined in relation to both the offender and the offence.[^4]

Delay

[29] Mr. Forte submits that the delay in bringing Mr. Allegro’s case to a conclusion is a mitigating factor on sentence. He relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Nasogaluak[^5] in which Justice LeBel wrote at para. 53 that “…a sentence can be reduced in light of state misconduct even when the incidents complained of do not rise to the level of a Charter breach.” Justice LeBel referred to R. v. Bosley, in which Justice Doherty found that “excessive delay which causes prolonged uncertainty for an offender but does not reach constitutional limits can be taken into consideration as a factor in mitigation of sentence.” [^6]

[30] Mr. Allegro brought a s.11(b) application prior to trial, which was dismissed by Justice Dunphy on September 21, 2020.[^7] Justice Dunphy estimated that Mr. Allegro’s trial would end on February 12, 2021, just shy of thirty months after his arrest. For that reason, Mr. Allegro’s application was dismissed.

[31] Mr. Allegro’s trial is concluding today, forty‑one months after his arrest and eleven months later than Justice Dunphy’s estimate. Mr. Allegro’s actions did not contribute to the delay. Several factors contributed to the delay. The trial began on January 4, 2021 and concluded on February 2. One week of court time was lost due to the illness of a co-accused. Counsel filed written submissions, and on March 25 and 26 made oral submissions. The first date set for the delivery of judgment of July 9, 2021 had to be changed because a co-accused was required to appear for trial in another province that day. The accommodation of my schedule and counsel’s schedules over the summer resulted in judgment being delivered on September 16, 2021.

[32] This delay has been very stressful for Mr. Allegro. As Mr. Forte indicated, Mr. Allegro has had difficulty coming to terms with his freedom from prison life and engaging fully with his future because a jail sentence has been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles. He has had difficulty developing and maintaining personal relationships, focusing on school, and planning for the future. The delay has also extended the time that Mr. Allegro has been subject to house arrest. The delay is properly considered a mitigating factor on sentence.

Restrictive Bail Conditions

[33] Mr. Allegro has been under house arrest since December 20, 2020, some 13 months. Mr. Schultz submits that the court ought to consider that Mr. Allegro was confined to his home during a pandemic when the freedoms all Ontarians enjoy were curtailed. However, in addition to being confined to his home, Mr. Allegro has not been permitted to possess a cell phone or to use a computer without the supervision of an adult and has been required to report his comings and goings to the Ontario Monitoring Centre.

[34] Furthermore, Mr. Allegro’s house arrest condition contains no exemptions for any purpose, such as employment or education. He has had to rely entirely on his sister to be able to leave the house. These conditions were significant restrictions on Mr. Allegro’s liberty between December 20, 2020 and September 16, 2021, a time when he was presumed innocent, and are properly considered in mitigation of sentence.[^8]

Governing Sentencing Principles

[35] In determining the fit sentence for Mr. Allegro, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.

[36] The first is the fundamental purpose of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which is to “contribute, along with crime prevention measures, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society” by imposing sentences that have one or more of the following objectives:

1. denouncing unlawful conduct,

2. deterring the offender and others from committing crimes,

3. separating offenders from society where necessary,

4. assisting in the rehabilitation of the offender,

5. providing reparations for harm done to the victim or to the community,

6. promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender, and

7. acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community.

[37] The second is the principle of proportionality set out in s. 718.1. Any sentence I impose must reflect the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.

[38] I am also required by s. 718.2 to consider the following when determining the appropriate sentence:

❏ the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;

❏ where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

❏ the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

❏ offenders should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate; and

❏ all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victim or the community should be considered for all offenders.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[39] I turn now to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[40] First the aggravating circumstances:

1. Mr. Allegro committed this offence while incarcerated in a federal prison. He was serving a sentence and conducting his business with Mr. Sewell from the confines of the penitentiary.

2. The nature of the drug involved in this offence is an aggravating factor. Cocaine is a very dangerous drug. It is a poison that wreaks havoc on the lives of addicts, their families, and the community at large. Courts on numerous occasions have recognized the immeasurable harm cocaine causes to the fabric of our society.[^9]

3. The transactions being discussed between Mr. Allegro and Mr. Sewell had a commercial aspect to them. They were supplying drugs around the province. Mr. Sewell was waiting to sell the last half ounce of cocaine he had to a buyer from North Bay before he gave Mr. Allegro his share.

4. Mr. Allegro has an unenviable criminal record for a young man. It begins when Mr. Allegro was a youth and continues essentially without interruption until December 2020. It includes a conviction for possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking committed when Mr. Allegro was a youth. It also includes many convictions for acts of violence committed by Mr. Allegro when he has been in custody.

[41] I have also considered the following mitigating circumstances.

1. Mr. Allegro is young. He had just turned 21 years old at the time of the offence.

2. Mr. Allegro has accepted responsibility for his crime and is remorseful. I base this more on his statement to the court than on his guilty plea, although I recognize that by his guilty plea, he did admit that he had conspired to traffic in a controlled substance. His acceptance of responsibility and remorse are deserving of credit.

3. Mr. Allegro has new and significant support in the community to assist him in his rehabilitation. He has reconnected with his sisters after many years apart and come to appreciate the importance of his family. He has been living with his sister who has been guiding and assisting him to forge a productive and pro-social path.

4. Mr. Allegro has complied with stringent bail conditions since December 20, 2020. While on bail, he has taken steps to change his lifestyle, steps he had not previously taken. He has set goals for his future that include a career. He applied for school. He has obtained an employment opportunity. He is learning how to manage his finances. The letters written by his sisters speak of the positive changes they have seen in Mr. Allegro over the past year as a result of becoming a member of their family again.

5. For the reasons I have already indicated, the delay in the completion of his trial and the role that anti‑Black racism played in Mr. Allegro’s offending are mitigating factors that I have considered.

Sentences Imposed in Other Cases

[42] To determine the appropriate sentence, I am required to consider sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. I am mindful however of Chief Justice Lamer’s caution that “… the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction.”[^10]

[43] The cases submitted by Mr. Schultz demonstrate the variation, depending on the circumstances, in sentences imposed on offenders involved in the cocaine trade. In many of the cases, courts applied the sentencing range referred to in R. v. Woolcock[^11] of six months to two years less one day, with isolated transactions involving small amounts of cocaine attracting sentences at the low end, and transactions involving larger amounts committed by offenders with criminal records attracting sentences at the higher end.

[44] Mr. Schultz also referred to two cases in which penitentiary sentences were imposed. In R. v. Mohamed,[^12] the offender was convicted of three counts of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He sold increasing amounts (up to two ounces) of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer on three occasions. Upon arrest, he was found in possession of approximately two ounces of crack cocaine. The trial judge found that the offender, who had a lengthy criminal record, accepted no responsibility for his crime, minimized his criminal record, was entrenched in the criminal lifestyle, and was not motivated to change. A sentence of four years was imposed before credit for pre-sentence custody was given. The sentence was upheld on appeal.[^13]

[45] The offender in R. v. Reid[^14] was convicted of four counts of trafficking in crack cocaine. The largest quantity involved was one ounce. The offender had no criminal record. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, noting that it was at the high end of the range.[^15]

[46] A review of the cases submitted by counsel demonstrates that the circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Sentencing is not a precise exercise. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. What is clear from these decisions is that denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing objectives to be considered when determining the fit sentence in this case.

Determination of a Fit Sentence

[47] Deciding the appropriate sentence in this case has been difficult. On the one hand, Mr. Allegro conspired to traffic in a dangerous drug from the confines of a federal penitentiary. He has a lengthy criminal record and, until December 2020, had been in prison almost continuously since he was 16 years old – seven years. He has been convicted of violent offences, most of which were committed while he was incarcerated.

[48] On the other hand, Mr. Allegro is a young man, who for the first time since February 2014, has been reunited with his sisters, who are assisting him to develop the skills and attitudes he needs to live a prosocial life. They report that there has been good progress in this regard in the year that Mr. Allegro has been out of custody.

[49] I recognize that there are significant aggravating features in this case. However, there are also significant mitigating circumstances that I have outlined. In my view, a sentence of two years less one day is within the range of sentence established by the jurisprudence for this offence and this offender.

[50] Given that I have determined that the appropriate sentence is less than two years in prison, a conditional sentence is an available disposition if the statutory conditions set out in s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code are met.[^16] The court may order that an offender serve the sentence in the community if satisfied that the community’s safety would not be endangered and that a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

[51] Mr. Schultz argues that Mr. Allegro’s record for violent offences makes him an unsuitable candidate for a conditional sentence because the court cannot be satisfied that the community’s safety would not be endangered if Mr. Allegro were permitted to serve his sentence in the community.

[52] I note that while living under his sister’s supervision for the past 13 months there have been no reported breaches of his bail conditions, no further criminal behaviour, and no violent incidents. The risk of Mr. Allegro’s re-offending must be assessed in light of the conditions that will be attached to the sentence.[^17] If Mr. Allegro remains subject to the conditions contained in his judicial interim release order, I find that there is minimal risk that he will reoffend.

[53] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that conditional sentences may be available even where deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing objectives.[^18] Conditional sentences are punitive. House arrest is a significant restriction on an offender’s liberty. Mr. Allegro will not be eligible to earn remission, which could lead to a reduction in the sentence if he serves his sentence in the community. Nor will he be eligible for statutory remission, which reduces his sentence. He will be required to complete every day of his sentence and then be subject to conditions of probation for two years.

[54] In describing the nature of a conditional sentence in R. v. Proulx, Lamer C.J.C. wrote at para. 22, “it will generally be more effective than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. However, it is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.”[^19]

[55] There is another reality that I have considered in deciding that Mr. Allegro’s sentence will be served in the community. Ontario is in the throes of the fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases in Ontario have surged to numbers not previously seen in the past two years. The Omicron variant is more contagious than the previous ones and has spread rapidly throughout the population.

[56] The Ontario government has implemented measures in an effort to blunt the transmission of this virus, including limiting social gatherings to five people indoors. Restaurants are closed for indoor dining. People are being urged to limit their interactions with others. This is difficult, if not impossible to do, in the congregate setting of a prison.

[57] Mr. Allegro would face particularly harsh conditions in prison as correctional authorities impose restrictions in an attempt to prevent outbreaks of COVID-19. Prisoners are locked down in their cells for significant amounts of time. Rehabilitative programs are not available, and family visits are cancelled. This will impede Mr. Allegro’s rehabilitative prospects. In addition, he would face the risk of infection.

[58] If there was ever a time to give Mr. Allegro an opportunity to prove himself out of custody, now is that time.

[59] Mr. Schultz said, with his customary frankness and fairness, “This is a tragic story. Mr. Allegro really did not have a chance from a young age.” I agree with him. Mr. Allegro has been out of custody for more than one year on very strict conditions. There have been no breaches, and he has made progress. This is the longest period of time Mr. Allegro has lived in the community without a criminal charge since he was 14 years old.

[60] What I see now is a chance for Mr. Allegro to turn his life around, a chance he has not had before. Facilitating his success in that regard is the best protection for the community. To send him to prison now would jeopardize that opportunity and is not necessary when a conditional sentence with the appropriate conditions can satisfy the objectives of sentencing.

[61] In the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a conditional sentence strikes a balance between punitive measures to address denunciation and deterrence and restorative measures to achieve rehabilitation. It is also consistent with the principle of restraint set out in ss. 718.2 (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code.

Disposition

[62] Mr. Allegro, I impose a sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community.

[63] The conditions of the sentence are as follows:

1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

2. Appear before the court when required to do so.

3. Report to your conditional sentence supervisor within two working days and thereafter as required by your conditional sentence supervisor.

4. Remain in Ontario unless you have the prior written permission from the court or the supervisor to leave the province.

5. Reside with your sister, Yakira Hume, at 212 Davis Drive, Apt. #1506, Newmarket, Ontario, or at an address approved of by your conditional sentence supervisor.

6. Notify your supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify your supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.

7. Co-operate with your supervisor. You must sign any releases necessary to permit your supervisor to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to your supervisor on request.

8. Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by your supervisor and complete them to the satisfaction of your supervisor.

9. Sign any release of information forms necessary to enable your supervisor to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling, or rehabilitative programs.

10. Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

11. Do not associate or communicate directly or indirectly by any means with Jason Sewell, Shaquille Belle, Marcus Cumsille, or anyone known to you to have a criminal record.

12. For the first 15 months of your sentence, you will remain subject to electronic monitoring and abide by all the rules and conditions set by the Ontario Monitoring Centre.

13. For the first 15 months of your sentence, you must remain in your apartment or in the common areas or on the property of 212 Davis Drive, Newmarket, Ontario at all times except:

i. for medical emergencies involving you or any member of your immediate family;

ii. for going directly to and from or being at your place of employment or education, court attendances, religious services and scheduled legal or medical or dental appointments;

iii. for going directly to and from and being at counselling sessions approved of by your conditional sentence supervisor;

iv. with the prior written approval of your supervisor, which must be carried with you during these times;

v. for four hours once per week on a day approved of by your supervisor for acquiring the necessities of life; and

vi. for carrying out any legal obligations regarding compliance with this order.

14. Confirm your schedule in advance with your supervisor setting out the times for the activities in paragraph 13.

15. For the remainder of your sentence, you must remain in your apartment or in the common areas or on the property of 212 Davis Drive, Newmarket, Ontario daily between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. except in the event of a medical emergency affecting you or a member of your immediate family or with the prior written permission of your supervisor.

[64] After the expiration of the conditional sentence, you will be on probation for two years with the same terms except that there will be no house arrest or curfew.

[65] Finally, I make a weapons prohibition order pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code for life.

Corrick J.

Released: January 24, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-50000037-0000

DATE: 20220124

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

KYLE ALLEGRO

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Corrick J.

Released: January 24, 2022

[^1]: R. v. Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13, at para. 75

[^2]: R. v. Morris 2021 ONCA 680, at para. 75

[^3]: R. v. Morris, at para. 77

[^4]: R. v. Lacasse 2015 SCC 64, at para. 53

[^5]: 2010 SCC 6

[^6]: 1992 CanLII 2838 (ON CA), [1992] O.J. No. 2656, at para. 44 (C.A.)

[^7]: R. v. Allegro, 2020 ONSC 5614, filed as Exhibit 2 in these proceedings.

[^8]: R. v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555, at para. 37. (C.A.)

[^9]: See for example, R. v. Cunningham (1996), 1996 CanLII 1311 (ON CA), 104 C.C.C. 542 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 CanLII 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C. A.); R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927 (C.A.)

[^10]: R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500, at para. 92.

[^11]: [2002] O. J. No. 4927 (C.A.)

[^12]: [2008] O.J. No. 5675 (S.C.J.)

[^13]: R. v. Mohamed 2009 ONCA 424.

[^14]: [1997] O.J. No. 2167 (S.C.J.)

[^15]: [1999] O.J. No. 2719 (C.A.)

[^16]: R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478

[^17]: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5.

[^18]: R. v. Wells 2000 SCC 10, at para. 35

[^19]: Supra, note 17. Emphasis in original.