COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-70000371 DATE: 20240216 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: R. v. brittany johnston-brazil

BEFORE: S.F. Dunphy J.

COUNSEL: Christine Jenkins, for the Crown Kristen Dulysh, for the Defendant

HEARD at Toronto: January 30, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION - SENTENCE

[1] On August 9, 2023, I accepted Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s guilty plea on four counts in the indictment charging her with (i) use of an imitation firearm while committing the indictable offence of unlawful confinement: (s. 85(2)(a)); (ii) aggravated assault (s. 268(2)); (iii) unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)) and (iv) uttering a death threat (s. 279(2)). All other charges in the original indictment were withdrawn. I conducted a guilty plea inquiry in the course of which Ms. Johnston-Brazil confirmed under oath the truth of the description of the circumstances of the offences for which she pled guilty contained in a signed Agreed Statement of Facts. Sentencing submissions were received from the parties on January 30, 2024.

[2] Ms. Johnston-Brazil was one of two individuals arrested in connection with same incident. Mr. Jason Lacroix also pleaded guilty to the first three offences (use of imitation firearm, aggravated assault and unlawful confinement) and did so under a separate Agreed Statement of Facts that is identical to the one agreed to by Ms. Johnston-Brazil in all material respects relevant to sentencing. The two sentencing hearings were conducted consecutively in the presence of both parties and their counsel. While the two are being sentenced separately, there is a considerable overlap in the relevant circumstances and accordingly my two decisions should be read together. There are material differences between them as regards their respective degrees of responsibility, their individual circumstances and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances applicable to each.

[3] The reasons for decision for Mr. Lacroix’s sentence to be released at the same time shall build upon the common circumstances present in both and is intended to be read in tandem with these reasons.

Circumstances of the offences

[4] The offences in question arise from an incident that occurred in the night of August 23-24, 2022 at Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s downtown Toronto apartment. The events are described at length in the Agreed Statement of Facts referenced above. Those facts may be briefly summarized as follows.

[5] The victim of these offences, Mr. Auston Williamson, was 25 years of age and had known Ms. Johnston-Brazil for several years since both were in their teens. Ms. Johnston-Brazil, born in April 1999 was 23 years of age at the time. The two had previously been in an intimate relationship during the course of which Ms. Johnston-Brazil became convinced that Mr. Williamson owed her approximately $2,000 for various expenses she had paid while they were together. She also believed that Mr. Williamson bore some responsibility for the Children’s Aid Society having apprehended her second child. At the time of the incident, Ms. Johnston-Brazil was no longer intimately involved with Mr. Williamson and had formed an intimate relationship with Mr. Lacroix. Mr. Lacroix and Mr. Williamson had never met. All three were users of drugs.

[6] That day, Mr. Williamson called Ms. Johnston-Brazil to arrange to buy some crystal meth for a friend. Ms. Johnston-Brazil offered to arrange a ride for him to get to Pickering. Prior to his arrival at her apartment, Ms. Johnston-Brazil smoked some meth. Mr. Lacroix became upset upon learning that Mr. Williamson was coming and an argument ensued during which she told him that she had invited Mr. Williamson over to confront him about the money she said he owed her.

[7] Mr. Williamson arrived at about 11pm and his ordeal would last approximately five hours until police arrived at the apartment at about 4 am.

[8] Ms. Johnston-Brazil went to the reception area of the building to admit Mr. Williamson and brought him up to her apartment. Upon opening the door, he was confronted by Mr. Lacroix who was as tall and muscular as Ms. Johnston-Brazil was short and slight. Mr. Lacroix displayed an imitation firearm. It was a very good imitation firearm in that nothing in its appearance displayed its imitation nature – it looked and looks quite real. The display had its intended effect. Mr. Williamson obeyed instructions to sit on the couch without offering any resistance.

[9] While the imitation firearm belonged to Ms. Johnston-Brazil who knew that Mr. Lacroix sometimes took it with him when he went out, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Ms. Johnston-Brazil made a prior arrangement with Mr. Lacroix to display the imitation firearm when and in the manner that he did.

[10] Ms. Johnston-Brazil brought up the subject of the money she said she was owed and began punching Mr. Williamson in the face. At one point when Mr. Williamson attempted to get up and leave, Mr. Lacroix pointed the imitation firearm in his face and Ms. Johnston-Brazil pointed a knife at his stomach. When he began to bleed on the sofa, he was ordered to move to the floor and did so. Ms. Johnston-Brazil bound him hand and foot with zip ties. A gag was inserted in his mouth to muffle screams.

[11] There is no suggestion in the agreed evidence that Mr. Lacroix said anything during the approximately five hours that Mr. Williamson spent in the apartment before police arrived. He is not alleged to have spoken any direct threats or to have touched Mr. Williamson beyond a single incident of kicking him in the stomach at some point during the ordeal in addition to having displayed and at one time pointed the imitation firearm. By and large he remained seated on the couch with the imitation firearm in his hand.

[12] I shall not relate at length the details of Mr. Williamson’s ordeal. It was a prolonged, sadistic torture session. The details are related in the Agreed Statement of Fact. Virtually all of the physical violence inflicted upon Mr. Williamson was at the hands of Ms. Johnston-Brazil with the exception of the single kick to the stomach delivered by Mr. Lacroix referenced above.

[13] In addition to using her fists, Ms. Johnston-Brazil resorted to a 54cm metal rod that was used to beat Mr. Williamson about the head, back, knee and elbow. The butt of the rod was used to strike him in the eye. At one point, she brought out a tattoo gun that she possessed and, while laughing and proclaiming how much fun she was having, proceeded to tattoo a large, offensive message using prison slang intended to endanger Mr. Williamson should he find himself in that environment in future replete with an arrow pointing to his anus area unambiguously inviting rape.

[14] Repeated demands for money were made upon Mr. Williamson and all of his pleas were ignored as were his offers to pay her later. At one point, Ms. Johnston-Brazil forced Mr. Williamson to make calls to various individuals to plead for the money demanded. His mother, her partner and his boss all received such calls. Ms. Johnston-Brazil threatened to kill Mr. Williamson if he told anyone what had happened and also threatened to break his jaw so he could not speak. Mr. Lacroix was present for those threats but did not himself utter any.

[15] The call to Mr. Williamson’s mother was Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s undoing. His mother immediately contacted police who, on entering Mr. Williamson’s apartment, found open Facebook messages that led them to Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s apartment. Two officers attended to investigate. When they knocked on her door and announced their presence, Mr. Williamson’s feet were untied and he was ordered to wait in the bathroom and be quiet. Instead, Mr. Williamson made a dash for the front door, opened it and rushed into the corridor and into the arms of the surprised officers waiting there.

[16] The scene was captured by a police body camera. Mr. Williamson’s T-shirt was ripped and covered in blood. He left eye was all but invisible behind bruising and blood. He had a huge bleeding gash on his forehead. He was visibly panicked but thanked police. At first he would not say what happened beyond that he was “not a rat” and that police could figure things out for themselves. Once he was led away from the apartment and into an ambulance, he related the story in detail. Ms. Johnston-Brazil at first attempted to persuade police that Mr. Williamson had only recently gotten there and was in that state when he arrived. She also gave a false name for Mr. Lacroix who sat on the couch mutely.

[17] The video and photographic evidence provide mute but eloquent testimony of the extent of Mr. Williamson’s injuries. Deep red welts in the shape of the metal pole on his back are visible in more than a dozen places on his back. A huge red welt and bruise is visible on his right side. An approximately seven-inch gash above his left eye required multiple stitches to close and has left a large, prominent and permanent scar on his face. His left eye was nearly completely swollen shut that night and a huge black eye remained the next morning when further photographs were taken after his wounds had been treated. A lurid tattooed message covers nearly his entire lower back region with a large arrow pointing towards his anus below a message inviting his rape. Other bruises on his torso and arms, blood smeared on his face and covering his T-shirt complete the gruesome picture.

Victim impact

[18] While Mr. Williamson declined to provide his own victim impact statement, he did convey to police that he has undergone ten painful sessions to remove the tattoo on his lower back and will be required to undergo about twelve more before the job is done. There is no evidence before me as to how successful the removal efforts will be when the job is complete but I cannot fail to infer at least some uncertainty on that account from general knowledge of the subject. His facial scar remains and I shall not speculate on the degree to which it may be ameliorated in future or at what cost in terms of money and future discomfort of surgery.

[19] Mr. Williamson’s mother Kimberly Williamson provided her victim impact statement which included significant information from which inferences may be drawn regarding the impact upon Mr. Williamson as well. She described the anxiety she endured that night from the time of receiving her son’s call until she finally received word that her son had been found alive. She attended by his side that night and found that the side of his face was unrecognizable. Her son, who had mental health issues and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder as a child, has had thoughts of suicide following the incident. The pain she has endured in living with this has been a “living hell” for her to deal with. She said that it breaks her heart that in addition to all he endured, her son must also endure more pain in try to have the large and disgusting tattoo removed from his back. She looks forward to the day when they will be able to find peace and all the suffering will come to an end.

Circumstances of the offender

[20] I have been provided with a report of Dr. Gojer dated December 11, 2023 concerning his assessment of Ms. Johnston-Brazil.

[21] It is clear from the history of Ms. Johnston-Brazil assembled by Dr. Gojer that she has had a very troubled time in her life so far. Elements of the history as assembled from various sources by Dr. Gojer appear at times to be contradictory, in particular the descriptions of Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s relationship with her parents and her former stepmother and her siblings. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges is reasonably consistent. Some of the highlights include:

a. Her parents separated when she was two or three years old. Her father has maintained a very close relationship with her while her mother, having once had a close relationship, has broken off contact since her arrest. b. Her father had custody of Ms. Johnston-Brazil from about the age of five. c. She also has five siblings between her two parents and is close with some of them including one sister who has maintained close contact since her arrest. d. She was diagnosed with PTSD and struggled in school and finally dropped out of school in Grade 11 when she became pregnant. She gave her daughter up for adoption by an uncle due to her substance abuse issues and has had no contact with her for many years. e. Ms. Johnston-Brazil was the object of a 2017 intervention by police and TTC security personnel when, having apparently consumed crystal meth, she was found acting erratically, hallucinating and threatening to harm herself with a pen knife. She was apprehended for her own safety under the Mental Health Act but not retained on a Form 1 due to the drug-induced nature of the event. f. Two further interactions with police occurred in June and July 2018 also apparently involving crystal meth, erratic behaviour and paranoid delusions. She was admitted to hospital under a Form 1 following the latter of these. g. She has never maintained any kind of steady employment due to her drug use but worked sometimes for cash paying jobs. h. She has formed several relationships with men that she described as physically and emotionally abusive. She had a second child who was taken into custody by the CAS. i. She described to Dr. Gojer a long history of substance abuse of alcohol, cigarettes graduating to crystal meth and cocaine along with marijuana and prescription drugs such as Xanax beginning from middle school.

[22] Ms. Johnston-Brazil spent several periods of time as a 13 and 14 year-old girl with Youthdale Psychiatric Crisis Services where she was admitted due to self-harming behaviour and suicidal ideation on at least one occasion and family stress issues on others. Her history was described as “chaotic” and there were indications of various family stressors including a refusal to return to her father’s custody. There were also indications of a history of making false allegations.

[23] Dr. Gojer’s prognosis and recommendations in his report noted:

“The presence of a Borderline Personality Disorder along with antisocial traits make her prognosis guarded. She has had a long history of multiple drug abuse, and problems regulating her mood and her temper. Her aggression towards the victim had a retributive quality to it based on possible misinformation or distorted thinking that falls short of a psychosis. Ms. Johnston-Brazil has a history of aggression and she reports that she has had to resort to violence to defend herself. The offending behavior stands out as an exceptional episode of aggression that is not reflective of her violent behaviours in the past.”

[24] In summary, Ms. Johnston-Brazil has had an exceptionally troubled background the origins, untangling and treatment of which are far from resolved. In Dr. Gojer’s opinion, she could benefit from further treatment and the violence of the offences for which she is before me today stands out as being exceptional notwithstanding that history.

[25] Dr. Gojer’s report included the results of his interview with Mr. Johnston, Mrs. Johnston-Brazil’s father. Mr. Johnston also provided a letter of support of his daughter which I have reviewed. He reports the positive progress his daughter has made in addressing her substance abuse issues since her detention. She has worked on repairing her family relationships and preparing for a stable future after her sentence has been completed, whenever that may be.

[26] Her father is clearly an asset – and an important one – in any path towards a more stable future for this very troubled young woman when she emerges from whatever sentence may be imposed.

Mitigating circumstances

[27] In my view, the following mitigating circumstances must be taken into account in fashioning a fit and proper sentence in the case of these offences and this offender:

a. Her youth - Ms. Johnston-Brazil was 23 years of age at the time of the incident. She is entitled to consideration as a relatively youthful offender. b. Her lack of a prior criminal record and status as a first-time offender. c. Her guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility. d. Her rehabilitation efforts as evidenced by the certificates of completion of programming offered to her while in custody prior to sentencing and her expressed desire to complete her high school diploma as well as the support that her father has continued to supply. e. The 51 days of full lockdown (including at least two instances of consecutive days of lockdowns) out of 497 days in pre-sentence custody (as of the day of the sentencing hearing) and the additional hardships associated with such conditions which go beyond the normal restrictions associated with pretrial custody per R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 at para. 50.

Aggravating circumstances

[28] I find that the Crown has established the following aggravating circumstances in the evidence each of which I find to be proved beyond reasonable doubt:

a. This offence involved a former intimate partner of Ms. Johnston-Brazil and its commission arose in part as a result of her exploiting the trust the victim had in her when, suspecting nothing, he attended her apartment building and was led up to what was effectively an ambush by her. b. The degree of pain and physical harm inflicted upon Mr. Williamson as described above including the pain yet to be endured as part of the tattoo removal process. c. The degree of psychological harm inflicted upon the victim as evidenced by the state of Mr. Williamson visible in the video of his liberation as well as in the victim impact statement of Ms. Kimberly Williamson and that can be inferred by the application of common sense from the details of the offences outlined in the ASF. d. The nature and size of the lurid tattoo, including its unambiguous invitation to sexual assault of the victim and the attempt to mark the victim as a “rat” in the eyes of the prison population. As well, the length of time clearly taken to apply this tattoo and the evident pleasure expressed by the offender in doing so. e. The impact upon the victim and the victim’s family as evidenced by the Victim Impact Statement. f. The vulnerable nature of the victim who suffered from prior mental health challenges and Autism Disorder. g. The weapons employed including a knife, the imitation gun, the metal pole and the tattoo gun. h. The manner in which the victim was confined for the bulk of the time, bound hand and foot with zip ties gagged and lying on his stomach. i. The prolonged period of time during which the ordeal lasted and the evident sadistic pleasure expressed by Ms. Johnston-Brazil throughout. j. The threats to kill the victim and to break his jaw to prevent him from telling others. k. Pre-meditation and planning: there was certainly a degree of planning but the evidence does not permit any conclusion that the planning was in detail or necessarily contemplated all of the details of what ensued. l. Forcing Mr. Williamson to call others for money under duress.

Position of the parties – Crown

[29] The Crown sought the following sentences to be imposed upon Ms. Johnston-Brazil:

a. Aggravated assault – six years; b. Unlawful confinement – 12 months concurrent; c. Death threats – 6 months concurrent; and d. Imitation firearm – 12 months consecutive.

[30] In terms of ancillary orders, the Crown sought:

a. Credit for pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1; b. A DNA order; c. A 10-year prohibition under s 109 of the Criminal Code; d. An order pursuant to s. 743.21 prohibiting contact with Mr. Williamson or his family while incarcerated; and e. Forfeiture of the tattoo gun, the imitation firearm, the ammunition and the knife seized.

Position of the parties – Defence

[31] The defence submitted that a global sentence of four years would be appropriate. Recognizing that s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code requires that the minimum one year sentence for committing an indictable offence while using an imitation firearm be served consecutively to any other sentence arising from the same event or series of events, Ms. Dulysh agreed with the Crown that the sentences for unlawful confinement (12 months) and uttering a death threat (6 months) should be served concurrently to the sentence for aggravated assault which she suggested should be one of three years.

[32] The defence took no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown and the parties agreed to present me with an updated consent calculation of pre-sentence custody to the date of the delivery of my sentencing decision which was fixed to be February 16, 2024.

[33] The main point of departure between the respective positions of the Crown and defence on sentencing relates to the appropriate sentence for the aggravated assault in the circumstances here present. There was little serious challenge to the aggravating circumstances alleged. The defence agreed with the Crown that this case should be placed in the upper range of aggravated assault cases in terms of seriousness but submits that the mitigating circumstances and the situation of this offender as outlined by Dr. Gojer warrants a sentence for aggravated assault in the lower end of that upper range. There was no dispute on the proposed concurrent sentences for unlawful confinement, uttering a death threat or on the application of the minimum consecutive sentence to the use of an imitation firearm in the commission of these offences.

Application of sentencing principles

[34] The Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 noted that “the individualization of the sentencing process requires sentencing judges to prioritize and blend different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender”, but “the search for a just sanction which reflects a proper blending of the objectives of sentencing is guided by the lodestar of proportionality.” (at para. 58-59).

[35] Indeed, the Criminal Code in s. 718 and following provides judges with a variety of factors to be weighed in fashioning a fit and proper sentence in the individual circumstances of each offender and of each offence, often pulling in apparently opposite directions.

[36] There can be little doubt that the constellation of aggravating circumstances present in this case combined with the gravity of the offences in question require that denunciation and deterrence must be given primary consideration as sentencing objectives. There can similarly be no doubt that the gravity of the offences considered in their true context clearly places this combination of crimes at the high end of the scale of aggravated assault cases. Mr. Williamson was subjected to a nightmare of five hours of brutal and degrading torture, sadistically applied without mercy and out of any conceivable proportion to whatever twisted motive gave rise to the attack upon him.

[37] That conclusion is reinforced when a consideration of the degree of personal responsibility borne by Ms. Johnston-Brazil is factored into the balancing process. Ms. Johnston-Brazil was clearly the animating force and the condition sine qua non for what happened that night. She was the mastermind – issuing commands to Mr. Williamson, delivering almost all of the physical torture inflicted upon him and often expressing glee at the results of her efforts. She conceived of the “confrontation” and led it throughout.

[38] Primary consideration being given to denunciation and deterrence of course does not imply exclusive consideration to those factors. Proper regard must be had to, among other factors, the prospects for rehabilitation of the offender and a proper, contextual weighing of the mitigating circumstances present.

[39] M.A. Code J. provides a very helpful template for considering aggravated assault cases for sentencing purposes in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677 and later in R. v. Seeratan, 2019 ONSC 4340 at para. 35-36. He described the cases as generally falling into three “ranges”. The bottom end he described as “exceptional cases” or “the most mitigated cases” where an intermittent sentence or suspended sentence with probation has been applied. The mid-range of cases was described as those where high reformatory sentences were applied. Such cases generally involve first time offenders and contain elements suggestive of consent fights where excessive force has been used. The high end of the range has resulted in sentences in the four to eight year range. Such cases generally involve recidivists or unprovoked or premeditated assaults without any elements of self-defence or consent being involved.

[40] There is no disputing that this case falls in the upper range as described by M.A. Code J. and Ms. Dulysh readily conceded the point. This assault was unprovoked, premeditated and exceptionally severe in nature. There is no suggestion of self-defence or consent having played any role here.

[41] It should be noted that the maximum sentence for aggravated assault is fourteen years while the maximum sentence for unlawful confinement is ten years. In other words, the higher end of the range described by M.A. Code J. is not a ceiling so much as an observation that most decided cases by and large fall within the range he described. Indeed, there are many instances of cases where significantly longer sentences have been imposed. The cases of R. v. Kim, 2023 ONSC 4441 and R. v. Owusu-Sarpong, 2023 ONSC 496 are instances of sentences imposed outside of that range.

[42] Establishing a range is never more than a starting point. Sentencing in our system is too individualized a process to be reduced to a mathematical equation with so many months added for this factor or taken away for that. Where a just sentence for Ms. Johnston-Brazil lies relative to the described ranges requires further consideration of the mitigating circumstances present as well as her particular circumstances including prospects for rehabilitation.

[43] There can be no doubt that Ms. Johnston-Brazil has had a troubled – and indeed a very troubled - life to this point in her young life. She is a still youthful first-time offender and entitled to all the consideration that must be accorded to that status including a particular focus on the least restrictive of available sanctions that are reasonable in the circumstances consistent with the harm done to the victim as well as the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation.

[44] Ms. Johnston-Brazil has been in the care of a variety of professionals over the years. Before exiting her teen years she had experienced her own parents separating, her father separating from her step-mother, years of substance abuse and the loss of two children to adoption and apprehension by child welfare authorities. She is a complex individual and her relationship with her family is equally complex. All of these factors and others besides have played a role in what happened that night.

[45] There is a lot of treatment, therapy, struggle and introspection that lies between the young woman present before me for sentencing and the stable person her father and sister desperately wish to greet upon her emergence from incarceration. The prospects of a recurrence of these offences in some form cannot be considered to be substantially reduced at this time – it is far too early to reach that conclusion. While the events giving rise to these charges indicate a level of violence she has not previously displayed, I cannot conclude that that threshold of violence will never be approached or crossed again, at least not at this stage. Her role as a leader and not a follower in these violent events must factor into any overall view of her prospects for rehabilitation. There was nothing in the context of Mr. Williamson that night that pointed towards this quantum leap in her degree of aggression and violence – while the degree of violence on display that night appears to have come out of the blue and doubtless was facilitated by the drugs she ingested, it was her idea and hers alone.

[46] She entered a guilty plea it is true but did so only after the victim was put through the ordeal of testifying at the preliminary inquiry and in the context of an overwhelmingly strong Crown case given the circumstances of how and in what condition Mr. Williamson was liberated by police.

[47] Nevertheless, there are bright spots that must also be weighed in the balance. However equivocal her acceptance of responsibility for her actions may at times appear (I refer here to some unfortunate blame-shifting comments she made to Dr. Gojer as reported by him), she has accepted responsibility and she has taken on board the task of working on herself with the tools at her disposal given her circumstances. Her participation and willingness to participate further in therapy and treatment cannot simply be dismissed as a charade. It is true that she has had similar opportunities to work on herself and to gain insight into the bad choices she has made earlier in her short life. She was, however, a teenager at the time with all that that precarious time of life implies. I cannot fairly judge her future prospects of coming to terms with the issues that have plagued her, not the least of which is persistent substance abuse, by earlier failures at that age. Treatment is not a panacea, but I cannot conclude that she is unwilling or resistant.

[48] Ms. Johnston-Brazil read to me a letter composed by her in her own words expressing both her remorse and her resolve to address her problems. This is a step and an important one. The risk of setbacks in future does not detract from the hope that a single positive step forward portends.

[49] It is plain that substance abuse has played a very significant role in much that has not gone well in her life and that it played a very significant role in the events that brought her to this court as well. While I am hopeful that she is turning a corner in terms of mastering that particular demon, the risks of further problems arising on that account are necessarily still quite real. Dr. Gojer’s assessment of her prognosis was quite reasonably a guarded one. Further treatment and assessment is required to mitigate the risk to society she poses. While not ideal, the custodial environment does at least offer the opportunity to pursue this in a supervised format.

[50] The circumstances of these crimes, the devastating impact upon the victim, the prolonged period of time over which pain was deliberately and maliciously inflicted and Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s very high level of personal responsibility for them all suggest a just and equitable sanction at or very near to the sentence sought by the Crown. I differ from the Crown’s sentencing assessment only to a relatively small degree. A base sentence of six years (prior to the consecutive mandatory minimum for use of the imitation firearm) strikes me as giving insufficient weight to her status as a youthful first-time offender and her guilty plea as well as the lockdowns that have punctuated her time in detention. In my view, an aggravated assault sentence of 5.5 years strikes a more satisfactory balance. My survey of the jurisprudence led by both sides leaves me uncomfortable with a six year sentence for aggravated assault given these mitigating circumstances here and comparing the gravity of the offences in the cases cited by both sides to the circumstances here.

Disposition

[51] In the result, I am sentencing Ms. Johnston-Brazil as follows:

a. Aggravated Assault (s. 268(2)): Five years, six months; b. Unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)): one year concurrent with (a) above; c. Death threat (s. 264.1(1)(a)): six months concurrent with (a) above; and d. Use of imitation firearm in commission (s. 85(2)(a)): one year consecutive to (a) above.

[52] The following ancillary orders shall be made:

a. Ms. Johnston-Brazil shall be credited with a total of 514 days of presentence custody at a rate of 1.5 days to 1 for a total presentence custody credit of 771 days. b. A DNA order in respect of the primary designated offences of aggravated assault and unlawful confinement under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code. c. A 10-year prohibition under s 109 of the Criminal Code; d. An order pursuant to s. 743.21 prohibiting contact with Mr. Williamson or his family; and e. Forfeiture of the tattoo gun, the imitation firearm, the ammunition and the knife seized.

[53] The forgoing sentence reflects full consideration of all mitigating circumstances including the conditions of her pre-trial detention and in particular the number of lock-down days recorded.

S.F. Dunphy J. Date: February 16, 2024