COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0178-00
DATE: 2023-09-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
His Majesty the King
Mr. M. Humphreys and Ms. L. Taylor, for the Crown
Crown
- and -
Stanford Kokokons
Mr. K. Matthews, for the Accused
Accused
HEARD: July 17, 2023 at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Madam Justice H.M. Pierce
Reasons For Sentence
Overview
[1] Stanford Kokokons pleaded guilty to killing Lance Wanakamik on April 2, 2021, at the First Nations Territory of Mud River, thereby committing manslaughter, contrary to s. 236(b) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The court must determine what is a fit sentence in all the circumstances. Before I do that, I wish to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Lance Wanakamik. The court regrets his loss and the pain that those close to him are suffering.
The Facts
[3] An agreed statement of facts was read into the record. The salient facts are as follows.
[4] On April 1, 2021, Stanford Kokokons, Lance Wanakamik, and siblings Loretta and Justin Shapwaykeesic, left Jason Shapwaykeesic’s home in Whitesand First Nation, and travelled about an hour down a logging road to the landing. There, they transferred their supplies to a snowmachine and travelled a further 20 minutes to Mud River. Stanford and Loretta were a couple. Loretta and Justin’s brother, Andrew, was to arrive later.
[5] The group of four planned to stay in Mud River for a week to cut wood.
[6] A second group, Andrew Shapwaykeesic and Darlene Sinoway, proceeded to Mud River, arriving between 5:00 – 6:00 p.m. Andrew and Darlene were also a couple. Lance was their nephew.
[7] At Mud River there is a collection of cabins built close to the rail line. In early spring, apart from snow machine, the rail line is the only feasible means of access.
[8] Loretta, Justin, and Stanford, planned to stay at the Shapwaykeesic cabin. Lance planned to stay at his brother, Darby Wanakamik’s cabin, while Andrew and Darlene planned to stay at the Sinoway cabin.
[9] Darlene offered to make dinner for the group. She was the only person who consumed minimal alcohol that day. The others began drinking before departure and continued throughout the evening. Except for Darlene, the rest of the group were intoxicated to varying degrees by the evening.
[10] Lance arrived at Darlene’s cabin at about 8:20 p.m. to see if dinner was ready. It was, and he ate, indicating that the other three were on their way. Loretta and Justin were the next to arrive for dinner. Loretta left to get Stanford, who was having difficulty walking on the hills between cabins.
[11] Darlene observed Stanford through the cabin window. He was drunk, to the extent that he could not stand, and fell more than once on the way to her cabin.
[12] The group did not linger over the meal. Loretta, Lance, and Justin left Stanford behind and returned to the Shapwaykeesic cabin. Stanford was angry that Loretta left without him. He was obviously drunk, pounding on the table, losing his balance and falling inside the cabin, and again outside the cabin.
[13] Darlene went outside and attempted to assist Stanford up the hill to his cabin, without success. He was too heavy to pull in a sleigh, so Darlene sought help. In time, Lance arrived with a snow machine and transported Stanford to the Shapwaykeesic cabin, and Darlene returned to her cabin and played cards with Andrew.
[14] Once at the Shapwaykeesic cabin, Lance asked Justin if he could sleep at their cabin for the evening, and Justin agreed. Loretta had gone to sleep in a bedroom.
[15] The evening was going well until Stanford, who was still intoxicated, urinated all over the cabin floor and on a bed. Angry, Justin ejected him from the cabin and began to clean up. Eventually, Stanford returned to the cabin.
[16] At some point, Justin, who had gone to Loretta’s bedroom, could hear Stanford and Lance arguing in the kitchen about the mess Stanford made urinating in the cabin. A commotion ensued and Justin heard Lance yell, “He stabbed me.” Justin returned to the kitchen to see Stanford running out the door.
[17] Stanford had stabbed Lance once with a large kitchen knife. The blow struck Lance’s lower chest and upper abdomen. Justin observed blood under Lance’s shirt. He did not know what to do so he told Lance to go to Darlene for help. Lance walked the 300 metres to the Sinoway cabin alone. It was about 11:00 p.m. when he arrived. Lance told Darlene that Stanford had stabbed him. He collapsed and never got up. Darlene ran to the Shapwaykeesic cabin to get help, while Andrew made efforts at CPR, which were unsuccessful.
[18] A radio phone at the Shapwaykeesic cabin was the only means of communicating with the outside world. Justin called his brother, Jason, at Whitesand First Nation. When he told Jason there had been a stabbing at Mud River, Jason did not believe him. It took several calls from Justin and Darlene until Jason was persuaded to dial 9-1-1. It was then 11:09 p.m.
[19] Next, Darlene returned to her cabin to check on Lance. His pulse was faint. Andrew was trying to revive him. She returned to the Shapwaykeesic cabin to confirm that help was on the way.
[20] In the meantime, after receiving very vague information, the emergency operator called the radio phone at Mud River at 11:18 p.m. and learned the details of the emergency. The police received a call for service at Mud River about 11:20 p.m.
[21] By 11:43 p.m., the emergency operator called Mud River back to advise that a “hi-railer” pick-up truck, outfitted to drive on the rail line, had been dispatched with police and paramedics on board. Justin was asked to take Lance to the rail line. The first hi-railer departed at 12:08 a.m. followed by a second vehicle at 12:11 a.m. on April 2, 2021.
[22] Darlene and Loretta walked to the Sinoway cabin to check on Lance. By then, he was dead.
[23] Justin called the emergency operator at 1:04 a.m. on April 2 to advise that Lance Wanakamik had died.
[24] Police and paramedics arrived in Mud River about 1:10 a.m. They were advised before their arrival that Lance had died.
[25] Loretta met the police at the rail line. She appeared intoxicated. She led them to the Shapwaykeesic and Sinoway cabins.
[26] Darlene took the officers to her cabin where they found Lance’s body. He was attended by the paramedics. By 1:43 a.m. it was apparent that Lance was dead and there was nothing the paramedics could do for him.
[27] Next, two officers attended at the Shapwaykeesic cabin where they wakened Stanford Kokokons. He seemed intoxicated and confused about why the officers were there. He showed signs of impairment, slurring his words, unsteady on his feet, having difficulty with his footwear, and unable to follow police instructions. He was arrested for murder.
[28] The police transported Stanford, together with Lance’s body, by hi-rail to the Armstrong OPP detachment.
[29] The two cabins were processed by OPP identification officers who seized a knife. The Centre for Forensic Sciences analyzed swabs from the blade of the knife. DNA analysis indicated a very high likelihood that the blood on the knife blade belonged to Lance Wanakamik.
[30] The handle of the knife was also swabbed and tested for DNA. There were mixed samples from two people on the handle, one associated with a high likelihood to be Stanford Kokokons.
[31] Pathologist, Dr. Escott, performed an autopsy on Lance. He determined that Lance had died from significant bleeding caused by a single downward stab wound of moderate force to the left lower chest, puncturing the diaphragm and liver, into the portal vein.
[32] No arteries were punctured; had they been, blood loss would have been immediate. Dr. Escott’s opinion was that, given the nature of the wound, an average person would probably have survived between 20 to 60 minutes without medical intervention. Dr. Escott was also of the view that the blood-ethanol level in Lance’s blood would have accelerated his blood loss.
[33] No defensive wounds were found.
Description of Manslaughter
[34] Manslaughter is an offence that may be committed in a variety of circumstances. As the Supreme Court of Canada determined in R. v. Creighton, 1993 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, the mens rea or mental element for the offence is objective: in other words, not what was actually in the mind of the accused, “but what should have been there, had the accused proceeded reasonably.”
[35] Section 236 of the Criminal Code prescribes the maximum sentence for manslaughter as life imprisonment, with a minimum sentence of four years where a firearm is used. There is otherwise no minimum sentence in the Criminal Code.
[36] In R. v. Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196, 1995 A.B.C.A. 196, 165 A.R. 375, paras. 8 and 9, the court describes how manslaughter sentences may be analyzed:
…for sentencing purposes, the court is not limited to evaluating moral blameworthiness in terms of an offender’s mental state. Indeed, it would be quite wrong to engage in that kind of acontextual analysis. That is because the offender’s level of moral culpability will be influenced by other factors. In the case of unlawful act manslaughter, the most important of these will be what the unlawful act itself involved. The nature and quality of the unlawful act itself, the method by which it was committed and the manner in which it was committed in terms of the degree of planning and deliberation are all relevant to this inquiry.
Unlawful acts may be divided into three broad groups: those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, bodily injury; those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, serious bodily injury and those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, life-threatening injuries. Only when the offender's proven mental state at the time of commission of the offence is evaluated in the context of the crime itself, in other words in terms of its relative degree of seriousness, is it possible to classify for sentencing purposes the degree of fault inherent in the crime committed.
Position of the Crown
[37] The Crown submits that on the spectrum of culpability for manslaughter, ranging from near-accident to near-murder, this offence approaches near-murder, and thus a higher penalty is warranted.
[38] The Crown contends that the appropriate sentence is eight years in penitentiary less enhanced credit of 1.5 days for each of 183 days of pretrial custody, giving a total enhanced credit of 274.5 days. The Crown also seeks a lifetime weapons prohibition and an order requiring Mr. Kokokons to give a DNA sample to the DNA Data Bank.
Position of the Defence
[39] The defence disagrees that this is a near-murder case. It submits that the appropriate range for sentence is four to seven years, with credit for enhanced custody rounded up to 275 days.
Case Law
[40] There is no dispute that because Mr. Kokokons is an Indigenous man, the sentencing principles identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, and R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, apply. The Crown also relies on R. v. Elliott, 2015 BCCA 295, 2015 B.C.C.A. 295, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1481, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and R. v. Mercier, 2023 ONCA 98, 2023 O.N.C.A. 98 from the Ontario Court of Appeal.
[41] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that “a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
[42] Section 718.2(b) states that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. For that reason, it is useful for the court to consider comparable sentences imposed in like circumstances.
The Crown’s Cases
[43] The Crown cited seven cases dealing with sentencing in manslaughter cases. They can be summarized as follows.
- R. v. Clarke, 2003 CanLII 28199 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1966: in this case, the victim, a 47-year-old friend of the offender, in frail health, was stabbed with a knife seven times in his own home. The victim was defenseless. Clarke, aged 29, was convicted after a jury trial. He hid the knife and diverted suspicion from himself at the scene, exaggerating the degree of provocation by the victim. The victim’s family was devastated. The Ontario Court of Appeal characterized the offence as one of aggravated manslaughter and set the range of sentence at between 8 – 12 years. Once credit for pretrial custody was determined, the sentence imposed was nine years imprisonment.
[44] In my view, this case is distinguishable from the present case, in so far as the offender was not identified as Indigenous, the attack was especially vicious, and occurred in the victim’s home. The offender made efforts to hide the weapon and divert attention from himself. His lack of a guilty plea or evidence of remorse also distinguish this case.
R. v. Tony, 2010 SKQB 258, 2010 S.K.Q.B. 258, [2010] S.J. No. 423 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench): the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The victim was killed by a single stab wound inflicted while the offender and the victim, who were friends, had been drinking heavily. The victim’s sister was the offender’s common law wife. The offender gave an inculpatory statement, immediately tried to get medical help, and performed CPR until the ambulance arrived. He expressed remorse. His criminal record of 14 convictions contained no convictions for violent offences. The court makes no mention of Gladue factors. A sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, less credit for four years in pretrial custody.
R. v. Kidder, 2016 ABPC 136, 2016 A.B.P.C. 136, [2016] A.J. No. 603 (Alberta Provincial Court): the offender, a 37-year-old Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing an unarmed customer to whom he sold drugs. The victim was stabbed multiple times in an event characterized as self-defence using excessive force. The offender disposed of the knife but admitted his involvement upon arrest. The victim’s family were profoundly affected. The offender was affected by multiple Gladue factors and had become involved in alcohol and marijuana when he was 17. His mobility and employment were affected by a workplace accident, and he had a criminal record including convictions for an assault and a weapons offence. The court accepted a joint submission of six years in prison with credit of 19 months for time served in pretrial custody.
R. v. Woodford, 2016 MBQB 72, 2016 M.B.Q.B. 72, [2016] M.J. No. 119 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench): the offender, a young Indigenous woman, was convicted of manslaughter for which she was sentenced to eight years in prison, and one year concurrent for assault with a weapon. The offender had a history of numerous assaults on her common law partner, who died after a single knife wound to his chest. At the time of the stabbing, the offender was subject to a probation order prohibiting contact with her partner and a recognizance prohibiting possession of a weapon. While in pre-sentence custody, she furthered her education and engaged in constructive programming.
[45] This case is distinguishable because of the history of assaults on the partner in a domestic context. As well, the breaches of court orders are aggravating factors not present in this case.
R. v. Taniskishayinew, 2018 BCSC 296, 2018 B.C.S.C. 296, [2018] B.C.J. No. 323 (British Columbia Supreme Court): an Indigenous woman who was a 23-year-old and an alcoholic at the time of the offence, was convicted of manslaughter. She was the mother of two children, had a prior criminal record, and had a history of violence while intoxicated. She was remorseful and pleaded guilty to manslaughter at an early stage. There were many Gladue factors in her history. The killing occurred when she and her male companion had been drinking. She inflicted a single stab wound to the victim’s torso with a kitchen butcher knife, then disposed of the knife. After crediting her with 930 days served in pre-sentence custody, she was sentenced to 530 days’ imprisonment and three years’ probation.
R. v. Komak, 2020 NUCJ 12, 2020 N.U.C.J. 12, [2020] Nu.J. No. 14 (Nunavut Court of Justice): the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The victim arrived, intoxicated, at the offender’s home and persuaded him to drink. The victim was found dead of a single stab wound; the offender was found sleeping. When awakened, he was intoxicated. He had slight injuries and no memory of the stabbing. He acknowledged that he had lost control during their drunken fight. He was sentenced to 3.5 years’ imprisonment minus pretrial custody credited at 605 days, plus three years’ probation.
R. v. Kokopenace, [2008] O.J. No. 4582 (Ont. S.C.J.): the offender, an Indigenous man, was charged with second degree murder. He was convicted by a jury of manslaughter when a period of binge drinking and a fight resulted in a single stab wound to the victim’s chest. Justice E. Stach concluded that the jury probably reached their decision based in the offender’s degree of intoxication, rather than provocation. The offender did not accept responsibility for his conduct and did not express remorse. Multiple Gladue factors applied. The court concluded that his extensive criminal record indicated that he was a serious risk to public safety. He was sentenced to 7.5 years of custody less credit for pre-sentence custody.
[46] This case has distinguishing features: the lack of remorse or a guilty plea, and the risk to the public posed by the offender’s history of violent offending.
The Defence Cases
[47] The defence also cited R. v. Taniskishayinew as part of its review of sentencing cases.
- R. v. Hester, [2017] Q.J. No. 17451 (Quebec Superior Court): a jury found the offender, an Indigenous man, guilty of manslaughter after the victim died from a single stab wound to the chest. The offender hosted a party at which he and others consumed alcohol and cocaine, to the point where he could not remember what happened. He was remorseful, had remained totally sober in the seven-year interval until sentencing, had demonstrated exemplary behaviour while released, and had been compliant with his conditions. The court held that his exemplary behaviour after the commission of a crime was to be considered in sentencing, not only in his interest but in the interest of his community. A sentence of two-years less a day was imposed.
[48] I note that this case is outside the range recommended by the defence.
R. v. Thomas, 2016 ONSC 7944, 2016 O.N.S.C. 7944 (Ontario Superior Court): the offender was a 41-year-old Indigenous woman who pleaded guilty to manslaughter after stabbing her common-law husband. Gladue factors were present. The offender was sentenced to four years in custody, then credited with having served 803 days of pre-sentence custody.
R. v. Peters, 2014 B.C.S.C. 1009 (British Columbia Supreme Court): The offender, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his common-law wife after stabbing her when both were heavily intoxicated. The offender had no recollection of the killing. Gladue factors were present. He was remorseful and took steps to address his alcoholism. He was sentenced to four years and five months in prison.
[49] These cases are also characterized by the intimate partner relationship between the offender and the victim, which distinguishes them from the case at bar.
- R. v. Ibrahim, 2016 ONSC 1538, 2016 O.N.S.C. 1538 (Ontario Superior Court): A jury found the offender, a 47-year-old taxi-driver, guilty of manslaughter after he ran over a man on a skateboard in a fit of road rage. The offender had no criminal record. He was sentenced to four-years’ imprisonment.
[50] The defence concedes that the facts in this case are very different than in the case at bar. I agree.
- R. v. Tukkiapik, 2018 QCCS 5938, 2018 Q.C.C.S. 5938, [2018] Q.J. No. 14046 (Quebec Superior Court): the offender, a 32-year-old Inuit man, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He had been drinking and smoking crack cocaine, then got into an argument with the unarmed victim, whom he stabbed four times. The offender had numerous prior convictions for violent offences. Gladue factors were present. The offender had served 4.5 years of preventative custody; he was released on a suspended sentence with three years’ probation.
Circumstances of the Offender and Gladue Factors
[51] A Gladue report was filed at sentencing. Mr. Kokokons is a 53-year-old Indigenous man, the eldest of six children and a member of the Whitesand First Nation. He has the love and support of his family. When he is sober, he contributes in a constructive way to his community. Currently, he suffers from high blood pressure and is a borderline diabetic. He also suffers from anxiety and depression.
[52] Mr. Kokokons has no recollection of killing Lance Wanakamik. In court, he was tearful and deeply remorseful for what he had done. Since his arrest more than two years ago, he has abstained from alcohol.
[53] Mr. Kokokons’ parents attended residential school and their trauma became their children’s trauma. His parents, who were alcoholics, fought and drank in the home.
[54] Mr. Kokokons completed grade ten at high school in Thunder Bay. He found it difficult to be away from his family. His exposure to alcohol began at age 17; it became more serious by the time he was 20, around the time when his parents separated. This is when his trouble with the law also began, and he attended two court-ordered residential treatment programs for alcohol.
[55] In 2009, Mr. Kokokons’ father died of a brain tumor, a significant loss. His father had taught Stanford to hunt, fish, and trap, and the two of them had been close. The death of his father, and his unresolved grief, caused him to relapse into drinking.
[56] About 20 years ago, Mr. Kokokons suffered a blood clot on the brain after a fall and was hospitalized for a month; he was sober for 12 years thereafter, assuming the sole care and custody of his nephew and two nieces, aged one, six and seven. Members of the community recognize the loving care and effective parenting Mr. Kokokons lavished on these three children, who have finished, or are about to finish, high school, have found employment, and are leading productive lives.
[57] Mr. Kokokons is a practicing Catholic and has a strong connection to his community, Indigenous culture, and to the Elders. He enjoys speaking Ojibwe, smudging, attending powwows and being outdoors. He is motivated to return to Whitesand First Nation where he has a house and family, in order to make amends. He is also motivated to maintain his sobriety and attend counselling. When he is in Thunder Bay, he attends A.A. meetings.
[58] He spent 183 days in custody following his arrest in difficult conditions, which were worsened by the Covid pandemic. He is entitled to credit of 1.5 days per day of pre-sentence custody, or 275 days’ credit. During the pandemic, Mr. Kokokons completed 13 different self-help booklets.
[59] Mr. Kokokons has a criminal record with a significant gap since 2004. His convictions for violent offences are:
a) 1989: assault causing bodily harm;
b) 1991: pointing a firearm and assault with a weapon;
c) 1993: assault; and
d) 1998: assault with a weapon.
[60] The other convictions are mainly for breaches of court orders.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[61] Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code requires the court, in sentencing, to consider aggravating and mitigating factors connected with the offence.
[62] Normally, intoxication is a mitigating factor. However, the Crown submits that after 12 years of sobriety, the offender should recognize that when he drinks, he poses a risk to others, and thus, the fact that he was heavily intoxicated is an aggravating factor. I agree.
[63] As well, the use of a knife is aggravating. Mr. Kokokons was convicted for an incident in 1998 of stabbing another man in the head with a screwdriver while drinking. Like the knife, the screwdriver was a weapon that was readily available. While the 1998 conviction is dated and Mr. Kokokons is entitled to rely on the gap principle between 1998 and 2021 (See: R. v. Milani, 2021 ONCA 567, 2021 O.N.C.A. 567), there is a pattern of violence that emerges while he is intoxicated.
[64] The offender would have been aware that, at Mud Lake, medical help is not available. He was sufficiently intoxicated that he was unable to render assistance to his victim.
[65] In mitigation, Mr. Kokokons has pleaded guilty, accepting responsibility, and saving the family the trauma and the court the time of a trial.
Principles of Sentencing
[66] I have already referred to some principles of sentencing found in the Criminal Code and at common law.
[67] Section 718 of the Code sets out the purpose for sentencing, as follows:
- The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[68] The principle that less restrictive sanctions should be applied when appropriate is set out in s. 718.2(d), particularly as it applies to Indigenous offenders: s. 718.2(e).
Reasons for Sentence
[69] The Crown submits the facts of this case make it akin to near-murder and therefore a sentence in the higher range is called for.
[70] I do not agree. Death resulted from a single downward stab wound of moderate force to the left lower chest, leading to significant blood loss when the portal vein was punctured. Dr. Escott’s opinion was that, given the nature of the wound, an average person would probably have survived between 20 to 60 minutes without medical intervention. We are left to wonder if Lance would have survived had these events occurred where immediate medical help was available.
[71] The angle of the wound, away from the heart or lungs, suggests that Mr. Kokokons did not intend to fatally wound Lance.
[72] The fact that he could not remember the events of that evening and was confused at the police officer’s attendance also speak to his degree of intoxication. More likely, Mr. Kokokons lashed out spontaneously, from embarrassment and humiliation, reaching for the nearest weapon at hand, the kitchen knives, hanging on the wall.
[73] Manslaughter is a very serious offence. It is not without consequences. The court denounces Mr. Kokokons’ use of violence. Violence is destructive to the very fabric of Indigenous communities. It destroys their sense of security, of trust. Violence cheapens life and leaves behind a sense of loss. Violence is also destructive to the peace and security of the wider community.
[74] Lance Wanakamik was 27 when he lost his life. He is lost to his family, his friends, and his community. The fact that he lost his life at the hands of someone within his close circle whom he trusted for friendship and support is particularly troubling. It is troubling that it occurred at Mud River, a place of refuge, of traditional activities, of peace. That place will forever be associated with the memory of Lance Wanakamik’s violent death.
[75] I accept that Mr. Kokokons’ expression of remorse is sincere. He has taken responsibility for his conduct by pleading guilty. Furthermore, he has acted on his remorse by abstaining from drinking since his arrest, attending A.A. meetings, and seeking counselling from his church. I accept that, had he not been intoxicated, the stabbing would not have occurred.
[76] Mr. Kokokons has demonstrated that he can be a constructive member of his family and his community – a valuable role model. He has shown that he has the capacity to stay sober for long periods of time. It is no accident that the gap in his criminal record coincides with his lengthy period of sobriety.
[77] However, he must come to understand that when he drinks, he poses a danger to those around him. In his heart, he knows this. The court must also be concerned with the protection of the public, including members of Mr. Kokokons’ community. The risk to others is not present when he is sober. He must learn to deal with the unresolved anger and grief that triggers his desire to drink. Only then can the community, which he values, be safe.
[78] Mr. Kokokons is capable of rehabilitation. He is motivated to live a peaceful, constructive life. He has done so in the past. The weight of a denunciatory sentence should not be so great as to discourage his efforts at rehabilitation.
[79] I take into account that the death was caused by a single, unfortunate stab wound, fueled by a drunken argument, and facilitated by the proximity of knives. It was spontaneous. I also take into account the Gladue factors previously mentioned and the expression of remorse.
Final Decision and Ancillary Orders
[80] Mr. Kokonons, the sentence of the court is as follows:
You are sentenced to a period of incarceration of six years for which you are given credit for the equivalent of 275 days of pre-sentence custody. The net sentence is therefore 1,915 days or 5 years, 90 days.
In addition, you are required to submit a sample of your DNA to the DNA Data Bank.
As well, you are subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition.
[81] This is the order of the court.
“original signed by”
The Hon. Madam Justice H.M. Pierce
Released: September 20, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-0178-00
DATE: 2023-09-20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Crown
- and -
Stanford Kokokons
Accused
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Pierce J.
Released: September 20, 2023