COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-90000468-0000
DATE: 20230214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
JASON DIPASQUALE
Jeanette Gevikoglu and Christopher Kalantzis, for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Kim Schofield and Catherine Szpulak, for Jason DiPasquale
HEARD: December 13, 2022; and January 9, 2023
HIMEL J.
reasons for SENTENCE
[1] Jason DiPasquale entered a plea of guilty on November 9, 2022 to the charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 as amended (the “CSDA”). He had elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone.
[2] Mr. DiPasquale confirmed that he was entering this plea voluntarily, that he understood that the plea was an admission of the essential elements of the offence, that he was aware that he was giving up his right to have a trial, that he understood the nature and consequences of the plea and that he was aware that this court was not bound by any agreement made between counsel regarding the sentence. Counsel asked to have the matter of sentencing adjourned and the defence waived s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Counsel have now provided their submissions on sentence. The following are my reasons for sentence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[3] On November 16, 2019, Toronto Police Service Guns and Gangs Task Force obtained a Criminal Code[^1] (the “Code”) search warrant for a home located at 973 Victoria Park Avenue and a vehicle: an Infiniti Q50. Mr. DiPasquale was arrested at a gas station close to his home and his vehicle and person were searched incident to the arrest. In the centre console of the car, police located keys to his home. They also located on his person keys to a safe and a wallet with cash. Using the keys located in the vehicle, police entered the home at 973 Victoria Park. Mr. DiPasquale’s uncle and grandmother were in the house. His mother arrived as police were searching the house.
[4] In a basement bedroom that belonged to Mr. DiPasquale, police located a safe. They opened it using a key located on Mr. DiPasquale’s person. In the safe, police located 200 grams of cocaine, 40 pills of Alprazolam (common brand name Xanax), Mr. DiPasquale’s passport, and cash. Police also located digital scales, three cell phones, documents in Mr. DiPasquale’s name and a replica firearm which is a BB gun. Officer Sean Moxham of the Toronto Police Service estimated that the value of the cocaine seized would be between $9,800 to $11,900 if sold at the ounce level to $16,516 to $22,710 if sold at the gram level.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
[5] The Crown and defence provided a joint submission to the court, that an appropriate sentence in this case is a period of imprisonment served as a conditional sentence in the community. Bill C-5 has received Royal Assent and, accordingly, such a sentence is now available. Counsel take different positions on the length of the conditional sentence and the conditions to be attached to the order.
[6] Crown counsel submits that the range of sentence for the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking for a first offender is six months to two years. The objectives of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. However, for a first-time offender, rehabilitation is also a key objective of sentencing. Accordingly, Ms. Gevikoglu argues that Mr. DiPasquale should receive a sentence on the possession for the purpose of trafficking charge of two years’ less a day imprisonment, served as a conditional sentence, with ancillary orders which include: an order that a sample of his DNA be taken as this is a secondary designated offence; and that there be a forfeiture order of the cash of $2,715.00 found in the safe and on his person, the Colt air pistol and cartridges, drug paraphernalia, four cell phones and a charger which were seized at the time the warrant was executed. The Crown also asks that certain personal articles be returned to Mr. DiPasquale and that the court order a s. 109 order prohibiting him from possessing weapons for life.
[7] Crown counsel takes the position that a high reformatory sentence is appropriate for a Schedule I offence involving commercial trafficking of cocaine: see R. v. Woolcock, [2002] O.J. No. 4927 (C.A.); R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, at paras. 106-8; and R. v. Parranto and Felix, 2021 SCC 46, 411 C.C.C. (3d) 1, at para. 60. In certain cases, a conditional sentence served in the community may serve as an appropriate sentence. The duration and conditions are what achieve the fundamental principle of proportionality. The principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount for commercial levels of drug trafficking. Crown counsel submits that restricting the offender’s liberty on a conditional sentence is what provides the balance between principles of denunciation and deterrence and that of rehabilitation which is relevant for a youthful first offender like the applicant: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at paras. 29, 36, 44, and 117; R. v. Hirnschall, 2003 CanLII 46450 (ON CA), 176 C.C.C. (3d) 311 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 28; and R. v. Provencher, 2012 QCCA 18, 90 C.R. (6th) 413.
[8] The Crown further submits that imposing strict conditions like house arrest should be the norm for conditional sentences involving serious offences: see Hirnchall, at para. 28. In R. v. Ren, 2015 ONSC 3397, MacDonnell J. spoke of the use of stricter conditions to demonstrate that the offender is serving a period of imprisonment and is being denounced and punished: at paras. 32-33 and 38.
[9] Here, Mr. DiPasquale had a safe in his bedroom containing drugs, cash, numerous cell phones, digital scales and a replica firearm. He was involved in a drug operation of some value, calling for denunciation and deterrence. The Crown does not oppose reasonable exceptions for work, school, counselling or pro-social activities with house arrest and a curfew and submits that imposing such terms is in accordance with similar sentences for similar offenders since conditional sentences became available: see R. v. Kebede, 2021 ONCA 283; R. v. McMahon, 2022 ONCA 459. The Crown recognizes that Mr. DiPasquale had complied with bail terms and thus joins in the submission for a conditional sentence but says the bail terms were not so onerous to merit a term of sentence less than a high reformatory or less than house arrest and curfew.
[10] Ms. Gevikoglu argues that the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence of two years less a day with a graduated sentence, beginning with the first third being house arrest with exceptions for work, medical emergencies, school and for the purchase of necessities for a few hours each week. She submits that the second third of the sentence should require a curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except for work, and the last third of the sentence should have even less restrictive terms. This longer sentence is justified because of the quantity and value of the cocaine, which is a significant amount, and given the other drug paraphernalia present, which suggest that he was operating a small business from the basement of his family home. Crown counsel accepts that the 40 Xanax pills may have been for personal use and that the replica gun was a BB gun but, to a common person, it is a black metallic gun, which, in the Crown’s view, is an aggravating factor.
[11] Crown counsel further submits that the case of R. v. Katsoulis, 2022 ONCA 902, relied upon by the defence to support a nine-month conditional sentence involved highly unusual circumstances. These included fresh evidence at the Court of Appeal, where the court noted the passage of time and that the offender had continued with his own company with an employee as his surety without incident. She submits that, in Mr. DiPasquale’s case, the conditional sentence must have teeth in order to send the message that the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine is being denounced, as cocaine is a dangerous drug which causes much harm: see Sharma.
[12] As an alternative, should the court deem a sentence of less than two years is appropriate, the Crown recommends an 18-month, graduated sentence with ancillary orders as outlined above.
[13] Counsel for Mr. DiPasquale joins in the submission to the court that the appropriate sentence is a period of imprisonment served as a conditional sentence but differs from the Crown on its length. Counsel agrees with Crown counsel on the ancillary orders.
[14] Ms. Schofield provided to the court some background information about Mr. DiPasquale and certain letters in his support. Mr. DiPasquale has no criminal record. He has saved valuable court resources. He has expressed remorse through his guilty plea. He was 24 years old at the time of the offence and made a bad choice. He does not suffer from drug addiction. The circumstances are unusual in that, when he was charged, he contacted his employer immediately. He was honest and forthright and embarrassed by his actions. He expressed remorse immediately. The letter from his employer supports that Mr. DiPasquale focused on completing his hours to graduate as an electrician.
[15] Counsel on behalf of Mr. DiPasquale asks this court to impose a sentence that allows him to conclude his involvement in this offence as soon as possible. He has been on bail for three years, he has no prior record, there have been no breaches and he has made great progress in his work during this time. He does not want to drag this out any longer than necessary. Counsel proposes a sentence of six months with strict terms of house arrest and even electronic monitoring or nine months with a graduated approach in the conditions. Mr. DiPasquale has been required to reside with his mother who is his surety, but wants to move on with his life and, when he can, leave her house and be free to move in with his girlfriend. Ms. Schofield asks that the court not treat the presence of the BB gun as an aggravating factor, as the gun belonged to Mr. DiPasquale’s brother and, even if he wanted to use it, it had no cartridges and was something that could be bought in a local Canadian Tire store.
[16] Ms. Schofield points out that in Katsoulis, where the court imposed a nine-month sentence with conditions, the circumstances involved possession for the purpose of trafficking in three different substances and dealt with more serious circumstances than the case at bar. She asks that similar conditions be imposed here and that the sentence permit Mr. DiPasquale to work, which may include overtime at night and on weekends and an exception that allows him to pursue physical fitness activities at a local fitness club which he attends six days each week, and to attend school if appropriate.
EVIDENCE ON THE SENTENCING HEARING
[17] Crown counsel filed the Agreed Statement of Facts as an exhibit. It notes that the drugs seized were 200 grams of cocaine. It also contains Officer Sean Moxham’s opinion regarding the value of the cocaine seized upon Mr. DiPasquale’s arrest. His view was that it was worth $9,800 to $11,900 if sold at the ounce level and $16,516 to $22,710 if sold at the gram level.
[18] Counsel for Mr. DiPasquale submitted three letters in support of her client’s position. A letter from Kosta Iprakovski dated December 11, 2022, outlines that he has known Mr. DiPasquale since 2016, when he was working as an electrical foreman and Mr. DiPasquale was working as an electrical apprentice for Norton Electric. He also approached Mr. DiPasquale to work for him at Symtech Innovations. He described him as a “hard-working, a reliable young man who took pride in his work”. He said that he was shocked to learn of Mr. DiPasquale’s arrest on the charges but counselled him to stay focused on his work. He said Mr. DiPasquale followed his advice by studying for exams and completing every stage of his apprenticeship. He said he was a first-rate electrician who attends work, including overnight and on weekends, and provides services with exceptional skill and professionalism.
[19] Frances DiPasquale is Mr. DiPasquale’s mother and wrote a letter stating that her son is “a hard-working, generous and caring individual.” She says he is a wonderful son and grandson. She describes the charges as extremely out of character. Mr. DiPasquale’s partner, Avril Osmond, also wrote a letter of support.
[20] Finally, Mr. DiPasquale spoke at the sentencing hearing. He demonstrated remorse for his actions and said that he recognizes his mistakes and is embarrassed by his actions. He has been working hard, has focused on his career and is saving money for a mortgage to buy a home. He has disassociated from the friends he associated with at the time of the offence.
ANALYSIS AND THE LAW
[21] Before turning to the specific circumstances of this case, I first consider the general sentencing principles which apply. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. It is to ensure respect for the law and to promote a just, peaceful and safe society. The imposition of just sanctions requires that I consider the sentencing objectives referred to in this section. They are: denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence of the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society where necessary; rehabilitation of offenders; providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.
[22] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. When imposing a sentence, I am to take into account certain factors which may increase or reduce the sentence because of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh. The offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. For all offenders, and in particular Aboriginal offenders, all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered.
[23] I now turn to the relevant jurisprudence on sentencing applicable to the offence in this case. In cases involving persons convicted of trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking in controlled substances, the courts have ruled that deterrence and the protection of the public are of paramount consideration. The nature and quantity of the drug are relevant to the issue of sentencing. Whether there is a significant element of commercialism, the role of the offender and the circumstances of the offender are all relevant considerations. In passing sentence, the court may consider the well-being of younger, but presently uncommitted potential users of drugs. In so doing, the court may impose a sentence which emphasizes the protection of the public. The court will also look to the circumstances of the offender, including whether the offender has an addiction to drugs.
[24] The sentencing decisions for possession for the purpose of trafficking suggest a range of sentence between six months to two years less a day depending upon the circumstances of the offence and the offender: see Woolcock, at para. 15. The quantity of the drugs involved, the nature of the transactions and the criminal antecedents of the offender are all relevant considerations. See also R. v. Ahmed, 2016 ONCA 831, regarding the range of sentence of six months to two years for this type of offence.
[25] The issue of whether a sentence of imprisonment served in the community subject to conditions is appropriate is relevant in this case. Section 742.1 of the Code provides that where a person is convicted of a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3. The court must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code. A conditional sentence is designed to address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives: see Proulx. In Proulx, the Supreme Court held that a conditional sentence can achieve the objectives of deterrence and denunciation and that it is a punitive sentence as it is a sentence of imprisonment. There is no presumption that certain offences are excluded or that a conditional sentence can only be available in exceptional or rare circumstances: see Proulx, at para. 81. So long as the statutory conditions are met, a conditional sentence is available. Where onerous conditions are imposed, such as house arrest, a conditional sentence achieves a level of denunciation: see s. 742.3 of the Code.
[26] Bill C-5: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act received Royal Assent on November 17, 2022. It removed some limitations that were contained under s. 5(3)(a) of the CSDA on the use of conditional sentences and which had been previously held to be unconstitutional and struck down by the courts. The passage of this Bill permits the court to impose a period of imprisonment served as a conditional sentence in the community for the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking.
[27] In recent decisions referenced by Crown counsel, the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have provided direction in sentencing offenders involved in drug trafficking. While the Supreme Court in Parranto and Felix addressed the appropriate sentence for trafficking in fentanyl, the court also commented generally about the seriousness of drug trafficking offences, particularly for Schedule I substances, and the role of sentencing in “advancing public safety, hold[ing] those who distribute drugs accountable, and communicat[ing] the wrongfulness of poisoning people and communities”: at para. 60. See also Sharma, at paras. 105-108.
[28] The cases of Kebede and McMahon from the Court of Appeal provide guidance as to sentencing offenders in more similar circumstances to Mr. DiPasquale. In Kebede, the appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 15.4 grams of crack cocaine in his pocket in a search incident to arrest. He was sentenced to nine months in jail. He had no criminal record, support in the community, and his role in the drug operation was near the bottom of the hierarchy. Though a conditional sentence was not available for the offence at the time of sentencing, his sentence appeal came after the Court of Appeal’s decision in Sharma, which made conditional sentences available for possession for the purpose of trafficking offences. The Court of Appeal found that “none of the principles of sentencing would be served by reincarcerating the appellant” and that “there [were] very good reasons to believe [he could] be a valuable member of the community”: at para. 23. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal imposed a nine-month conditional sentence, with house arrest for six months and a curfew for the remaining three.
[29] The appeal in McMahon also occurred after the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Sharma. The appellant pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking for 138 grams of methamphetamine and originally received an eight-month custodial sentence. At the time of the offence, she was addicted to methamphetamine and sold it to support her habit. The Court of Appeal accepted fresh evidence that spoke to the appellant’s rehabilitation efforts: she had remained sober since charges were laid, demonstrated remorse in her plea, and had been on bail pending appeal for over a year without incident. The Court of Appeal substituted a conditional sentence of 23 months and 12 months’ probation.
DECISION
[30] Sentencing involves the exercise of discretion and requires the sentencing judge to consider the individual circumstances of the offender, the circumstances of the offence and the need for the sentence to meet the objectives outlined by Parliament. The goal of sentencing is to impose a just and fit sentence, responsive to the facts of the individual offender and the particular circumstances of the commission of the offence: see R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455, at para. 44.
[31] In considering both the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of this offender, I consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I must also consider that like offenders should be treated alike. I consider the following circumstances to be relevant in the case of Mr. DiPasquale. He was born on February 8, 1995 and is 27 years of age. He was 24 years of age at the time of the offence. His parents separated when he was young, and he was raised by his mother. He has no contact with his father. He has no prior criminal record. Mr. DiPasquale completed his high school education and pursued a two-year degree in the Electrician Construction and Maintenance Electrical Engineering program at Centennial College in 2016. He began his electrician apprenticeship in 2017, involving 9,000 hours of work, and completed safety and training courses with the Union IBEW, Local 353. He wrote his electrician’s examination on November 30, 2021 and became fully licensed. He has been working for Symtech Innovations Ltd. as a journeyman electrician.
[32] Following Mr. DiPasquale’s arrest, he was released on bail with his mother as his surety. He has been required to reside with her throughout the period of release. He has complied with all terms of release. Mr. DiPasquale plays a pivotal role in the care of his elderly grandmother, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and requires much care in her daily activities.
[33] With respect to the circumstances of the offence, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking is a serious offence. Cocaine is a highly addictive drug. The Ontario Court of Appeal wrote, in Woolcock, that sentences for trafficking in dangerous substances must emphasize that general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount concern. The accused’s prospects for rehabilitation as well as the other sentencing objectives must also be considered.
[34] Of course, in addition to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, I have considered the joint submission made to me by experienced counsel. I agree with the joint submission made to me, that a period of imprisonment in the reformatory range is appropriate and that this is a case where it should be served in the community as a conditional sentence. Serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code. In keeping with Proulx, a conditional sentence is designed to address both punitive and rehabilitative objectives and I find that these objectives are met in this case with a conditional sentence. I have also considered the submissions of counsel regarding the length of sentence and the conditions to be imposed. A conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment and, where onerous conditions are imposed, a conditional sentence achieves a level of denunciation: see s. 742.3 of the Code. Crown counsel seeks a sentence of two years less a day with graduated terms and, alternatively, a period of eighteen months. The defence seeks a sentence of six months with strict terms of house arrest and possibly electronic monitoring and, alternatively, a term of nine months with conditions.
[35] I am mindful of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Katsoulis cited to me by the defence, but I note that this was a case where, on the sentence appeal, the court found an error in the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s activities spanned at least a couple of months, which had been treated as an aggravating factor. The court commented that the trial judge imposed a sentence of nine months in custody and that the conditional sentence was not available at that time. The court wrote, at para. 6, “In the highly unusual circumstances of this case, and in light of the fresh evidence we have received on consent, and the many mitigating factors at work, including the appellant’s significant progress, his age and his lack of criminal record, we are satisfied that the nine-month custodial term of imprisonment should be converted to a conditional sentence order.” There is no indication whether the amount of imprisonment was on consent of the parties or whether the conditional sentence order was made on consent. The court imposed a series of conditions that reflected a graduated term beginning with house arrest for three months, a curfew for three months and less restrictive terms for the last three months.
[36] The mitigating factors in this case include that Mr. DiPasquale was only 24 years old at the time of the offence; that he has no criminal record; that he has complied with all terms of release, which involve a residential surety for three years; that he has utilized the time in a constructive way by completing his education, fulfilling the requirements for his electrician’s licence; and that he has worked throughout and obtained a very positive review from his employer. He is a good son and grandson and performs extraordinary duties with respect to his aging grandmother. From what he has said, he has separated himself from his former colleagues, is embarrassed by the criminal activity with which he was involved and has expressed remorse both publicly in his words and through his plea of guilty.
[37] The aggravating factors are that he was involved in operating a small business from his family home and the possession of 200 grams of cocaine, which is not an insignificant amount, was for the purpose of trafficking. The type of drug and the effect of this kind of offence on the public is also aggravating.
[38] The jurisprudence has made it clear that cocaine poses a grave threat to the community and “the trafficking of hard drugs leads to ‘significant if not staggering’ costs to society in terms of health care and law enforcement expenses, as well as lost productivity”: see Parranto and Felix, at para. 92, quoting Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 778 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at para. 89. See also R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130, at para. 83. The courts have recognized that periods of imprisonment are required for trafficking in hard drugs in order to meet the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. However, rehabilitation of the offender is also a relevant objective and one that ultimately protects society. It is for this reason that I agree with counsel and I am of the view that Mr. DiPasquale should receive a period of imprisonment served as a conditional sentence as submitted to me by both counsel.
[39] My view, however, is that the case of Katsoulis is distinguishable from the case at bar in some respects, though there are some parallel circumstances, including that in both cases, the offender was a youthful first offender who had done well in pursuing work and embarking upon rehabilitation after his arrest. Despite some differences between these two cases, like the “highly unusual circumstances” in Katsoulis (at para. 6), the mitigating factors in this case, outlined above, demonstrate exceptional circumstances that warrant a sentence outside of the usual range for this offence. In the result, I impose a sentence of 12 months of imprisonment to be served as a conditional sentence.
[40] In imposing this sentence, I have taken into account that Mr. DiPasquale has been on a surety release which, although not with strict conditions, has required that he reside at his mother’s house and that has restricted his liberty to some extent. In R. v. Downes (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), Rosenberg J.A., on behalf of the Court of Appeal, held that restrictive bail conditions such as house arrest may be taken into account in determining the appropriate credit given on sentence and such conditions may be a mitigating factor. I have not assigned any specific amount of credit for the time Mr. DiPasquale has been on bail as would be the case in Downes, but I have considered the period of release with a surety bail as a mitigating factor in the overall assessment of the appropriate amount of imprisonment to be imposed; thus, the 12-month sentence of imprisonment.
[41] During the entire period of imprisonment, Mr. DiPasquale shall:
(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(b) appear before the court when required to do so;
(c) report within five working days, in person, to a supervisor and thereafter report when required by the supervisor and in the manner directed by his supervisor;
(d) remain with the Province of Ontario;
(e) notify the supervisor in advance of any change of address and promptly notify the supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.
[42] The term of imprisonment will be served in the community as outlined below:
(1) For the first four months, Mr. DiPasquale shall be on house arrest and will be in his place of residence at all times, with the following exceptions:
(a) for employment;
(b) for personal fitness and physical health, with the location and time for such to be provided to the conditional sentence supervisor in advance;
(c) for medical appointments or emergencies involving Mr. DiPasquale or a member of his immediate family;
(d) for religious services;
(e) for purchasing necessities, once each week for four hours on a day to be approved by his conditional sentence supervisor; and
(f) for legal obligations regarding compliance with this conditional sentence order. The exceptions include direct travel to and from the location in question.
Mr. DiPasquale may also obtain written permission from his supervisor to be absent from the residence during this period of house arrest for any other reason deemed appropriate by the supervisor and Mr. DiPasquale shall carry the written permission on his person at all times while out of the residence during his house arrest.
(2) For the next four months, Mr. DiPasquale shall obey a curfew to be in his place of residence between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., with exceptions:
(a) for employment;
(b) for personal fitness and physical health, with the location and timing for such to be provided to the conditional sentence supervisor in advance;
(c) for medical appointments or emergencies involving Mr. DiPasquale or a member of his immediate family;
(d) for religious services; and
(e) legal obligations involving compliance with this conditional sentence order.
The exceptions include permission for immediate direct travel to and from the applicable location. Mr. DiPasquale may obtain written permission from his supervisor to be absent from the residence during his curfew hours for any other reason deemed appropriate by the supervisor. Such written permission shall be carried by him on his person at all times while out of the residence during the curfew hours.
(3) For the final four months, Mr. DiPasquale shall abide by the conditions:
(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
(b) appear before the court when required to do so;
(c) report as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor and in the manner directed by the supervisor;
(d) remain within the Province of Ontario; and
(e) notify the supervisor in advance of any change of address or change in employment.
[43] I further order that a sample of Mr. DiPasquale’s DNA be taken in accordance with s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code, as this offence is a secondary designated offence. There will be an order pursuant to s. 109 prohibiting Mr. DiPasquale from possessing any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code for life. I further order that the money, drugs, drug paraphernalia and the Colt air pistol and cartridges found in the bedroom and seized by police be forfeited to the Crown and that certain personal articles be returned to Mr. DiPasquale.
[44] This disposition, in my view, meets the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation and balances the goal of rehabilitation. The sentence takes into account Mr. DiPasquale’s expression of remorse and the joint submission of experienced counsel.
Himel J.
Released: February 14, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-90000468-0000
DATE: 202302014
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
b e t w e e n:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
JASON DIPASQUALE
REASONS FOR sentence
Himel J.
Released: February 14, 2023
[^1]: R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46