R. v. Ledoux, 2023 ONSC 6347

Court File No.: CR-21-40000195-0000 Date: 20231110 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Sean Ledoux, Defendant

Counsel: I. Shaikh and O. Ahmad, for the Crown J. Weisz, for the Defendant

Heard: June 20, 2022; June 27, 2023; and October 6, 2023

Reasons for Sentence

H. McArthur J.:

Introduction

[1] Sean Ledoux pleaded guilty before me to one count of sexual assault. [1] Mr. Ledoux is an Indigenous man who had unprotected vaginal sex with a friend of his after she passed out from alcohol and drug intoxication.

[2] As in the recent decision of R. v. R.S., 2023 ONCA 608, Mr. Ledoux’s matter “sits at the cross-roads of two powerful and pressing sentencing imperatives: (1) the need to recognize the harm and wrongfulness of sexual offending by imposing denunciatory and deterrent sentences, and (2) the need to ensure just, productive and proportionate sentencing for Indigenous offenders by respecting the Gladue principles, adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688”: R.S., at para. 45.

[3] Defence counsel submits that given the Gladue principles and the many mitigating factors in Mr. Ledoux’s case, the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation. The Crown counters that considering the seriousness of Mr. Ledoux’s criminal conduct, a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. He submits that three years in custody is warranted.

[4] For the reasons set out below, I have determined that a custodial sentence is necessary to give effect to the primary sentencing objectives in this case. On the other hand, I have concluded that a sentence below the applicable range of three to five years is fit and proportionate considering the compelling Gladue and other mitigating factors in Mr. Ledoux’s case. In my view, the appropriate sentence in this matter is a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years probation.

Circumstances of the Offence

[5] Mr. Ledoux and the victim, C.D., were friends. On March 8, 2018, they went bar hopping with a group of friends. Both C.D. and Mr. Ledoux became highly intoxicated.

[6] Mr. Ledoux and C.D. took a taxi to her condominium building in the early morning hours. They went to the party room in the building where they continued to drink alcohol. They went outside several times to smoke cigarettes and marijuana.

[7] At some point C.D. passed out. She woke up to Mr. Ledoux having sexual intercourse with her. She was confused. When she realized what was happening, she moved Mr. Ledoux off her. He tried to explain to her what happened, and they went outside. They smoked more marijuana and Mr. Ledoux vomited.

[8] C.D. went to the police the following day. The police obtained the surveillance footage from the building, including the party room. The footage shows that Mr. Ledoux and C.D. arrived at the building at approximately 3:33 a.m. They entered the party room a few minutes later. Between 3:35 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., the two continued to hang out, smoke marijuana and cigarettes and drink alcohol.

[9] At approximately 5:30 a.m., C.D. appeared to be passed out. Mr. Ledoux rolled a joint. Then, at approximately 5:35 a.m., he removed her jacket. At 5:37 a.m., he moved her into a sitting position. Between approximately 5:48 a.m. to 5:51 a.m., he could be seen moving his hands near the front of C.D.’s pants.

[10] At approximately 5:51 a.m., Mr. Ledoux positioned himself between C.D.’s legs. Starting at approximately 5:52 a.m., he started having unprotected vaginal intercourse with the unconscious C.D. The sexual intercourse ended approximately eight minutes later, at 6:00 a.m., when C.D. woke up and moved him off her.

Impact on the Victim

[11] C.D. wrote a powerful victim impact statement that eloquently set out the profound harm she has suffered from the sexual assault.

[12] C.D. has suffered both physical and psychological harm. For over a week after the incident she had pelvic pain. The emotional trauma of the assault manifested in her body through chronic back pain and stomach aches. She had no appetite, could not eat properly and lost weight. She could not sleep because of nightmares and became highly fatigued.

[13] After the incident C.D. was left feeling “frozen, angry, sad, dirty and alone.” She felt “embarrassed, ashamed” and “disgusting.” C.D. highlighted that she is a Black, “Queer” woman, who dates women. As C.D. explained, there was an “added component” to the harm caused by the assault in that a man had “invaded” her body.

[14] C.D. said that in the aftermath of the sexual assault, she began to use substances to ease her pain. As C.D. wrote, the assault left her in a state where she no longer cared about her dreams and overall wellness, as she was caught in “complete survival mode.”

[15] C.D., who had always been out-going, became closed off. The offence deeply impacted her relationship with her girlfriend at the time. Her trust in other people was destroyed. C.D. still finds it extremely hard to get close to people because of the shame, anger, and distrust she carries since her assault.

[16] C.D. is a self-employed performer. Mr. Ledoux’s assault undermined her “self-esteem, confidence, energy and sense of joy” and thus her ability to work. Before the assault she would busk or perform at festivals in front of thousands of people. After the assault she removed herself almost completely from such events. Because she was not performing, she was not earning. She struggled financially, often having trouble making her rent, which added “more stress and overwhelm” to her life. C.D. is also unable to afford therapy, though she wants to engage in counselling.

Circumstances of Mr. Ledoux

[17] Mr. Ledoux is a 34-year-old Indigenous man. He is a registered band member of Big River First Nation in Saskatchewan. Big River First Nation is a Cree nation, located 120 kilometres northwest of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

[18] Mr. Ledoux was born in Saskatoon. His mother, Nancy Ledoux (“Nancy”), is Cree from Big River First Nation. His maternal grandparents are both from Big River First Nation. Mr. Ledoux’s father is from the James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. Mr. Ledoux’s paternal grandfather is Metis (Scottish and Cree descent), and his paternal grandmother is Cree.

[19] Mr. Ledoux’s maternal grandmother was a residential school survivor. His mother was apprehended from her mother at birth in what is known as the “Sixties Scoop”, which has been recognized as a stain on Canada’s history. Nancy was adopted and was abused by her adoptive parents. She began to drink alcohol when she was eight years old.

[20] Mr. Ledoux is the youngest of Nancy’s four children. Mr. Ledoux’s father was an alcoholic and addicted to cocaine. He was physically abusive to Nancy. After Mr. Ledoux was born, he was apprehended into the child welfare system due to family violence. Although he was with his mother for brief periods, he essentially stayed in the system for three years before he was finally returned to his mother.

[21] Mr. Ledoux’s younger years were marked by dysfunction and discord. Nancy told the author of the Gladue report that she neglected her children. She did not provide them with food, or emotional sustenance, as she was too deep in the throes of her addictions. He regularly saw his family members get drunk to the point they passed out. His father was violent and left his mother when Mr. Ledoux was eight years old. Nancy then started a relationship with another man, Jose, who was a drug dealer. Nancy began to inject cocaine daily. During this period, the house was treated like a drug house, with dirty needles and mattresses strewn about. The police raided the residence numerous times. After Jose left, Nancy packed up her four children and moved to Calgary.

[22] Mr. Ledoux was diagnosed with ADHD when he was 11 years old and prescribed Ritalin. But his mother would take his medication and sell it to get money to buy drugs for herself. When Mr. Ledoux was 12 years old, his mother kicked him out of the home, and he wound up in foster care. He described this time as difficult. He ran away from foster care and began to live with his mother again.

[23] When Mr. Ledoux was 13 years old, Nancy moved the family back to Saskatoon. Then she uprooted the family again when Mr. Ledoux was 16 years old and moved to Toronto. There she continued to abuse alcohol and drugs. Housing was unstable, and there were times Mr. Ledoux and his family were homeless or staying in motels.

[24] Mr. Ledoux continued to have unstable housing until he finally got his own apartment in May 2022. However, his sister and her children had no place to go, and they live with him. His sister has a son with special needs, whom Mr. Ledoux helps care for. His mother is not with them as in October 2022, she was diagnosed with brain cancer, and is currently receiving treatment in New York.

[25] Mr. Ledoux completed grade 10 in Saskatoon. He had good grades, but his school was disrupted by the frequent moves. He did not attend school regularly once his mother moved the family to Toronto. He went to a school for adults and enrolled himself in a summer program at a local college in 2008 called the “Business Entrepreneurship Certificate Program”.

[26] Mr. Ledoux has worked with a roofing company since 2013, as a grounder. Before that, he worked in various general labour positions. He filed a letter at his sentencing confirming that he recently obtained employment with Nu Edge Roofing.

[27] Mr. Ledoux is also a talented performer who has used his musical ability to give back to the community. For example, he performed at various events in 2019 for Aboriginal Community Events. Because C.D. is also a performer, Mr. Ledoux has limited his involvement in the musical community. But he hopes to pursue his musical ambition.

[28] Mr. Ledoux first tried alcohol when he was 12 years old. By the time he was 16 years old he had developed a severe problem with alcohol. When he was about 27, he blacked out from alcohol consumption and fell out of a window, breaking his pelvic bone, heel, wrist, and spine. Even that incident did not deter his drinking, which Mr. Ledoux used as an unhealthy way to escape the childhood traumas he had experienced. However, since this offence, Mr. Ledoux has attempted to deal with his alcohol issues. He stopped drinking hard alcohol and limits himself to occasionally drinking beer. He is open to counselling to help him with his alcohol use.

[29] Mr. Ledoux’s Indigenous culture is important to him. He has connected with Aboriginal Legal Services and is open to participating in their programs, such as the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Program, the Kizhaay Anishinaabe Niin (I am a Kind Man) program and the Aboriginal Mental Health & Addictions Program.

[30] Mr. Ledoux has expressed remorse for his criminal conduct. This remorse came across in both the Pre-Sentence Report and the Gladue Report. He also wrote a letter of apology to C.D. Having had the opportunity to see and hear from Mr. Ledoux, I have no doubt he is profoundly sorry for his actions.

Sentencing Principles and Objectives

[31] As noted in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 58, the “determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.”

[32] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the “fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute ... to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society...”. This is to be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of several objectives enumerated in s. 718 (a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.

[33] Section 718.1 sets out the fundamental principle of sentencing, which is that any sentence imposed “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

[34] The Criminal Code lists several other principles to guide sentencing judges. The parity principle is set out in s. 718.2 (b) and provides that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.” Given the highly individualized sentencing process, however, the sentencing principle of parity remains secondary to proportionality: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 38. Sentences imposed for offences of the same type will not always be identical: R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342, at para. 17; Lacasse, at paras. 53-58.

[35] The restraint principle is reflected in s. 718.2(d) and provides that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. Subsection 718.2(e) highlights the particular importance of restraint when sentencing Indigenous offenders and requires that “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” (emphasis added).

[36] The various sentencing objectives and principles can often compete with one another, in that maximizing the denunciatory or deterrent effect of the sentence may be contrary to the rehabilitation of the offender and the principle of restraint, and vice versa. When this competition takes place in the context of crimes of sexual violence, the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given primacy.

[37] That said, the competing objectives and principles must be balanced in a way that respects the principle of proportionality. Even when denunciation and deterrence are the paramount sentencing objectives, the sentencing judge retains the discretion to assign significant weight to other factors, such as rehabilitation, in giving effect to the fundamental principle of proportionality: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 104; R. v. Rayo, 2018 QCCA 824, at paras. 103, 107-108.

[38] Pursuant to s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, with some exceptions, if a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may impose a conditional sentence if satisfied that allowing the offender to serve their sentence in the community does not endanger the safety of the community and is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. As explained by Paciocco J.A. at para. 82 of his dissenting reasons in R.S., conditional sentences were “developed in large measure to provide a sentencing tool capable of responding more effectively to the needs of Indigenous offenders and to enable judges to honour the legislated principles of restraint that apply to Indigenous offenders.”

[39] Since sentencing is highly individualized, the determination of a just and appropriate sentence requires the court to assess the aggravating and mitigating factors related to both the offence and the offender. Such an assessment is also mandated by s. 718.2 (a) of the Criminal Code, which states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the present case.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Aggravating Factors

[40] The victim was a friend of Mr. Ledoux. She trusted him enough to allow him to come back to her home and the party room of her building. Mr. Ledoux betrayed the trust she had placed in him.

[41] The sexual assault took place in the party room at her residence. Mr. Ledoux sexually violated C.D. in her home, a place where she should have been safe. But he also violated her in a public area, such that the assault was captured on closed camera television. This visual record of the assault added to the humiliation of the victim.

[42] C.D. was unconscious and extremely vulnerable.

[43] The sexual intercourse lasted for approximately eight minutes. It only ended when the victim woke up and pushed him off.

[44] Mr. Ledoux did not use a condom, thus exposing C.D. to the potential of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

[45] Mr. Ledoux caused C.D. profound psychological harm. The devastating impact that his assault had on all aspects of her life was set out in her powerful victim impact statement. The victim identifies as a Queer Black woman. She is part of a marginalized community. Her identity meant that the sexual assault had a particularly harmful impact on her.

[46] C.D. has suffered financial harm because of the assault. She could not work as a performer as the sexual assault undermined her confidence. She requires therapy to deal with the trauma, but as a self-employed performer, does not have benefits.

Mitigating Factors

[47] Despite a traumatic and chaotic childhood, Mr. Ledoux has managed to stay out of trouble for most of his life. While he is not a first offender, his only other conviction was for impaired driving in 2008. That is the only time he had been in trouble with the law prior to this offence. This supports that the sexual assault was completely out of character.

[48] Mr. Ledoux has been out on release for over four years. He fully complied with his bail, which further underscores that the crime he committed is out of character.

[49] Mr. Ledoux pleaded guilty, which saved resources at a time when the Superior Court in the Toronto region continues to grapple with a substantial backlog related to the Covid pandemic and a lack of judicial resources. His plea also meant that the victim did not need to testify. I appreciate that his guilty plea occurred on the eve of trial and that the case against him was strong. However, I accept the submission of his counsel that because there was no preliminary hearing, Mr. Ledoux did not review the disclosure with counsel until close in time to his anticipated trial. Once he did so, Mr. Ledoux quickly instructed his lawyer that he wished to plead guilty. Despite the timing, I consider his guilty plea to be highly mitigating in the circumstances.

[50] Mr. Ledoux has worked throughout his adult life. This shows that he has the capacity to be pro-social.

[51] Mr. Ledoux has been assisting in the care of his nephew, who has special needs. This highlights his caring and pro-social nature.

[52] Mr. Ledoux’s mother has brain cancer. Going into custody while his mother deals with this diagnosis will be difficult for both.

[53] Mr. Ledoux’s Indigenous culture is very important to him. He has found traditional Aboriginal programs to be helpful in his life. He wishes to continue to access such programs and attend sweats and ceremonies. He has reached out to Aboriginal Legal Services, and the Gladue report outlines several programs that would be helpful for him. Mr. Ledoux is eager to participate in such programs.

[54] Mr. Ledoux’s remorse is palpable. It comes through in his comments to the author of the Pre-Sentence report and the author of the Gladue report. He wrote a moving apology letter, in which he acknowledges the harm he caused C.D. He took the opportunity to address the court and reiterated his comments. He showed insight. There is no doubt that he is profoundly sorry for the harm he has caused.

[55] I turn now to my analysis as to what would be a fit and proportionate sentence in this case.

Analysis

[56] At the initial sentencing hearing that took place on June 27, 2023, both sides submitted numerous authorities in support of their respective positions. Following the hearing, the Court of Appeal released its reasons in R.S. I invited and heard further submissions from counsel about the import of the R.S. decision. I also accepted further written materials from the defence that included a helpful chart setting out sentencing decisions referred to by the court in R.S. I have considered all the authorities submitted by counsel. However, it is clear that the R.S. decision is the most pertinent one when considering what a fit and proportionate sentence would be for Mr. Ledoux.

[57] R.S. was found guilty following a jury trial of sexual assault and choking. R.S. was an Indigenous offender. He and the victim, who were friends, went out drinking. The complainant became intoxicated and had memory gaps. She came to with the offender on top of her, biting her abdomen and removing her tampon. She said “No” repeatedly, but R.S. digitally penetrated her. As she tried to get away, he choked her. Then he pulled her to her feet, pushed her over a counter and told her he wanted to “fuck her hard.” The incident only stopped when a neighbour came to check on the noises that sounded like someone in distress.

[58] The sentencing judge gave R.S. a conditional sentence for the sexual assault, and 90 days intermittent for the choking. The majority of the Court of Appeal, however, concluded that the sentence was unfit and “simply inadequate” to give effect to the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence: R.S., at para. 39.

[59] The majority also stressed that it is “now clear that the range for sexual assault involving forced penetration is 3-5 years in the penitentiary”: R.S., at paras. 4 and 22; see also R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, at para. 77.

[60] The majority in R.S. concluded that, even giving full effect to the principles in Gladue, a conditional sentence was an unfit sentence. As the court noted, sexual assault offences can encompass a wide spectrum of conduct that ranges from touching to forced intercourse. The court explained at para. 27 that while conditional sentences may be appropriate for sexual assault at the lower end of wrongful conduct, “there is no basis to suppose that it is appropriate for sexual assault at the higher end of that range.”

[61] Looking at the seriousness of the sexual assault committed by R.S., the majority of the court concluded that the appropriate sentence for R.S. was a penitentiary term of three years.

[62] Defence counsel highlights several ways that the facts in R.S. can be distinguished from Mr. Ledoux’s. R.S. had a jury trial, whereas Mr. Ledoux pled guilty, and is entitled to mitigation as a result. Mr. Ledoux seemed to be more intoxicated than R.S. was when he committed his offence, as evidenced by his vomiting. The Gladue factors are clearer in Mr. Ledoux’s case. Defence counsel stresses that Mr. Ledoux was not violent and stopped immediately when C.D. moved him away. In contrast, R.S. choked his victim when she tried to say no.

[63] The Crown counters that all sexual assaults are inherently “serious acts of violence”: A.J.K., at para. 74; R.S., at para. 29. The Crown submits that the R.S. decision supports his position of three years and makes clear that a conditional sentence is not fit or proportionate for Mr. Ledoux, even considering the principles set out in Gladue.

[64] This is a difficult case. Mr. Ledoux pleaded guilty, is genuinely remorseful and has tremendous rehabilitative potential. If he is incarcerated, he will not be able to help pay for C.D.’s therapy, a factor that supports a non-custodial sentence. While Mr. Ledoux has a conviction for impaired driving from 2008, he has otherwise stayed out of the criminal justice system. He has remained largely pro-social despite his chaotic and challenging childhood. He committed his offence while highly intoxicated, and his abuse of alcohol can be directly linked to the intergenerational trauma his family has endured. Mr. Ledoux is Indigenous, and the principle of restraint is of particular importance in his case.

[65] On the other hand, his criminal conduct was serious. The aggravating factors include that Mr. Ledoux abused the trust his friend C.D. placed in him, C.D.’s extreme vulnerability at the time of the assault, the profound impact of the sexual assault on C.D., the length of time that Mr. Ledoux penetrated her vaginally and the lack of condom use.

[66] Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, considering the Gladue principles, and applying the law as articulated in R.S., I have concluded that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. A conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, as it would fail to give sufficient voice to the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. An institutional sentence is required to give effect to these primary sentencing objectives.

[67] That said, there are substantial mitigating factors in Mr. Ledoux’s case. The Gladue report prepared in his case powerfully sets out the trauma his family has faced and how the impact of that trauma is connected to his offending conduct. There is no doubt that Mr. Ledoux’s criminal behaviour was “profoundly shaped by the damage done to him as a result of his indigeneity”: R.S., at para. 48. Mr. Ledoux’s moral culpability can rightly be considered reduced by his background: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at para. 73. While not a first offender, Mr. Ledoux has only one other conviction from 2008. Mr. Ledoux has family support and has helped take care of his nephew with special needs, which highlights his empathetic nature. He has been out on bail for several years without offending, which supports that the offence was out of character for him. Mr. Ledoux pleaded guilty. He has shown true insight into the harm his offending caused to C.D. He is genuinely remorseful.

[68] Balancing all the factors, in my view the appropriate sentence for Mr. Ledoux is two years less a day, plus two years’ probation. This is below the applicable range of three to five years. But I have concluded that a departure from the range is warranted in Mr. Ledoux’s matter, considering the Gladue principles and the many mitigating factors in his case. Although below the range, this sentence gives primacy to the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, while still recognizing Mr. Ledoux’s rehabilitative potential and the principle of restraint. Despite being below the range, it is a fit and proportionate sentence given the circumstances of his case.

[69] The terms of probation are attached to these reasons as Appendix “A”.

Ancillary Orders

DNA Order

[70] Sexual assault is a primary designated offence. As a result, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I make an order authorizing the taking of samples from Mr. Ledoux for the purpose of DNA testing.

Weapons Prohibition Order

[71] A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code also applies. Pursuant to s. 109(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Ledoux is prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years.

[72] Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b) he is further prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life.

SOIRA Order

[73] Pursuant to ss. 490.012(1) and 490.013(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Ledoux is required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, for 20 years.

Victim Surcharge

[74] Given the date of the offence, the Victim Surcharge set out in s. 737(1) of the Criminal Code does not apply: R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58.

Justice Heather McArthur

Released: November 10, 2023

Appendix “A”- Probation Terms for Sean Ledoux

Statutory conditions:

1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
2. Appear before the court when required to do so by the court.
3. Notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.

Additional Terms

4. Report by telephone to a probation officer within two working days of your release from custody, and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision.
5. Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with: C.D.
6. Do not be within 100 meters of any place where you know C.D. to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know C.D. to be EXCEPT for required court attendances.
7. Do not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example: a BB gun, pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)
8. Participate in programs deemed appropriate by probation in consultation with Aboriginal Legal Services, for example the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Program: the Kizhaay Anishinaabe Niin (I am a Kind Man) program; the Aboriginal Mental Health & Addictions Program and the Rapid Access Addictions Medicine.

Released: November 10, 2023

[1] Mr. Ledoux pleaded guilty on June 22, 2022. His sentencing hearing was adjourned several times for a variety of reason, including the preparation of a Gladue Report.