COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000139-0000

DATE: 20240605

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DAYNE JONES

Anita Kocula, for the Crown

Neil Fitzmaurice, for Mr. Jones

HEARD: March 2, 2023; May 22 2024

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Background

[1] On July 4, 2019, the police were called to investigate a woman with health concerns in Room 214 at Knight’s Hotel in Toronto. An officer shone a flashlight in the room and saw Mr. Jones sleeping. He was alone in the room. The officer instructed Mr. Jones to come to the door so the police could speak to him. Mr. Jones got up and as he did so the officers observed a firearm under the pillow. The officers the entered the room. They had a key card that the hotel management had given them. The officers seized the handgun – a Baby Desert Eagle handgun. The police also seized 37.03 grams of crack cocaine, 15.9 grams of powder cocaine, and 17.58 grams of heroin and fentanyl. Mr. Jones was on a weapons prohibition at the time. Mr. Jones was arrested and held in custody.

Proceedings In The Superior Court

[2] In October 2021, Mr. Jones brought an application to have the drugs and guns excluded. He argued that his Charter rights were violated. Corrick J. dismissed the application. On March 2, 2023 Mr. Jones had an uncontested trial before me. He was arraigned on the following charges:

• Count 2: Possession of a prohibited firearm without being the holder of a licence and a registration certificate contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 3: Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 4: Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 5: Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without being the holder of a licence and a registration certificate contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code;

• Count 9: Possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

• Count 11: Possession of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

[3] The Crown stayed Count 4. Mr. Jones did not contest the Crown’s facts or call any evidence. As a result, I found him guilty of all counts; but upon further review I realized that a mistake had been made with regard to count 11. I struck the original plea. He was re-arraigned and I found him not guilty of the offence of possession for the purposes of trafficking but guilty of the lesser and included offence of simple possession contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act. He now comes before the Court for sentencing.

Mr. Jones’ Background

[4] Mr. Jones was born and raised in Toronto. He is currently 37 years old. He has a pretty atrocious criminal record, starting when he was a youthful offender. His record starts in 2003, when, as a youth, he was convicted of robbery and break and enter. In 2004 he was convicted of failing to comply with a recognizance. In 2005 he began to serve longer custodial sentences. He also was sentenced as an adult. That year he accumulated three convictions for fail to comply with a recognizance, two convictions for obstruct police, and one conviction for fail to attend court. In 2006 he was convicted of two counts of possession of a schedule I substance and one count of fail to comply with a recognizance. He also began, as I said, to spend considerably more time in custody, and to commit considerably more serious offences. In 2009 he was convicted of robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to 6 months in custody after 7 months of pre-sentence custody. In 2011 he was convicted of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence (it is unclear which one). He received a suspended sentence in light of 391 days of pre-sentence custody.

[5] In February 2012 Mr. Jones was convicted of seven very serious offences. He was convicted of possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, for which he was sentenced to 3 years and 245 days in addition to 120 days of pre-sentence custody. He was also convicted of unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle and violation of a weapons prohibition order (for which he received two years concurrent); possession of a firearm knowing its serial number had been tampered with (for which he received 1 year concurrent); unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1) of the Criminal Code; fail to comply with a probation order; and possession of a scheduled substance for the purposes of trafficking, for which he received a 6 month concurrent sentence.

[6] When Mr. Jones committed these offences, he was subject to 5 weapons prohibitions. This is also his second gun possession offence, but his third offence involving a gun when the robbery with a firearm is included.

[7] I had the benefit of an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (also known as a Morris Report), which I will refer to as the “EPSR”. I have reviewed the EPSR in detail. I will summarize the key points. As the EPSR shows, a person is more than just the crime that they have committed and the criminal record they have accumulated. EPSR’s are an effort to make that point. In addition to a more in depth look at the individual offender, the social context of the offender can provide valuable insight into the factors that have shaped him or her. Those factors may be a mitigating factor and may lessen the moral blameworthiness of the offender: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.

[8] Mr. Jones’ mother came to Canada at age 12. She was removed from her home – where she lived with her father and stepmother – by the child protection authorities. She became pregnant at age 16 with Mr. Jones’ sister, Latoya. She gave birth to Mr. Jones at age 19. She had two more children with other fathers. Mr. Jones’ own father was deported when Mr. Jones was four of five years old. He has had very little contact with his father, or with any other male role model. He was therefore raised by a single mother who tried to raise four children on very little money, in high-crime neighbourhoods with limited educational and employment opportunities. Regrettably, the social conditions of so many young, racialized men like Mr. Jones do not set them up for success. It is painfully obvious that is what happened here.

[9] Mr. Jones was highly athletic. He reported that he loved sports as a young man, especially soccer. Unfortunately, there was very little money to enrol him in sports programs. This was endorsed by Mr. Jones’ mother and sister.

[10] When Mr. Jones was 13 the family moved into a subsidized townhouse in Malvern. Mr. Jones described it as a high crime neighbourhood. He says that he witnessed shootings and violence. He said that it became normalized. Most of the families in the neighbourhood were Black families living in poverty. School was a problem. He says that he experienced racism, where the teachers favoured white and non-Black children, and steered the Black children into non-academic programs. As Ms. Richards sets out in her report, Mr. Jones’ self-reported experience is similar to that of other Black students. As well, Mr. Jones’ experience is validated by research into educational outcomes. Educational outcomes are worse for Black students than for their white peers.

[11] An important event in Mr. Jones’ life occurred when he was 18. He and one of his younger brothers (who was 15 at the time) were riding their bikes to a store when they were caught in the crossfire of a firefight. Mr. Jones was shot in the neck. The bullet lodged close to his spine, and it is still there. Mr. Jones spent six months in the hospital and two years in rehabilitation. According to Ms. Richards, who wrote the EPSR:

Mr. Jones disclosed that being shot as an innocent bystander affected his sense of safety, especially since the perpetrators were never caught. He became hypervigilant around people and environments that were unknown to him, and believes that if he had had a gun at the time, he could have prevented himself and his brother from being shot.

[12] Frankly, Mr. Jones is almost certainly wrong that possession of a gun would have prevented him being shot. Indeed, it is more likely it would have made him more of a target than a bystander since he has no idea who shot him or from what direction. As well, I simply do not accept that a person needs a gun for protection. This is a category error made by many people. But to be fair, it is an understandable category error: R. v. Morris, supra, at para. 100.

[13] Mr. Jones, his mother, and his sister described the family’s socio-economic status growing up. The family was very poor. The experienced food insecurity. His mother worked but also received social assistance. Mr. Jones says that he was often the subject of ridicule because he had shabby clothes and shoes, and frequently did not have lunches. His sister believes that Mr. Jones turned to crime to earn money because of the dire financial position of the family. Mr. Jones himself says that if he had been raised in a two-parent family that did not experience poverty, he “would have developed better life goals instead of succumbing to the streets.” I have no difficulty accepting the truth of that statement. He admitted that most of his peers from Malvern also became involved in the criminal justice system. Many have been incarcerated; some have died violently.

[14] Mr. Jones also had the experience of becoming a father at age 16. He met an older woman and had a child with her. He left school to find work in order to provide for the child. As a 16-year-old, he was qualified for little and only obtained menial jobs. He also believes that he was subject to racism in the workplace. He described situations where Black workers were treated differently from white and other racialized people.

[15] Mr. Jones described racial profiling and mistreatment at the hands of the police. He learned about carding. He says that he experienced numerous traffic stops while driving a nice vehicle – although he does not explain what he was doing with a nice vehicle when he also described living in poverty and having only menial jobs. He said that as he got older, he experienced increased police harassment and brutality. He believes that the police treat white people and Black people differently. He also believes, in the words of the EPSR, that “the police seek to incarcerate as many Black people as possible.” I understand that is Mr. Jones’ perception, but I do not accept it as a statement of fact.

[16] I do not doubt that Mr. Jones experienced more frequent encounters with the police than people of a different socio-economic and racial background, and that those encounters were likely worse. I do place weight on his assertions. Judges of this court and the Ontario Court of Justice are aware from this and other cases that there are more encounters between young Black men and the authorities than encounters with other groups. The Black community is, ironically, both over-policed and under-policed. That said, I must point out that there is no evidence to the contrary from the police authorities. It would likely be impossible for the police to compile evidence to refute every statement made by Mr. Jones if such evidence even existed. It would also be impossible for the police to do so every time they were accused of racial profiling and brutality. I also note that Mr. Jones is a person with a long criminal record that includes many convictions involving offences against the administration of justice.

[17] Regrettably. Mr. Jones finds himself in a terrible position: he has no real skills and no real education. He understands that being involved in a criminal lifestyle carried potential rewards, but also significant risks. As a man who is now 37 years old, he told Ms. Richards that “since being incarcerated for the index offences, he has reflected that his lifestyle is no longer sustainable, and will accept any form of employment and income that will allow him to avoid incarceration in the future.” His sister told Ms. Richards that she believed that “the childhood poverty they experienced coupled with becoming a teenage father contributed to Mr. Jones’ trajectory into crime.” As Ms. Richards states in the report, research validates that Black and other racialized communities disproportionately experience poverty.

[18] At this point, it will not be easy for Mr. Jones. Again, as Ms. Richards sets out in her report, research validates that incarceration has a very negative outcome on the ability of people to work and earn income. Employers are less willing to hire people with a criminal record. Their earnings are often below the poverty line. They are more likely to be on social assistance. Formerly incarcerated Black people, moreover, are employed at lower rates than formerly incarcerated white people. I accept that Mr. Jones is sincere about wanting to move away from a criminal lifestyle. I am sure he understands that it will be difficult.

Legal Parameters

[19] Possession of a firearm contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. At the time of the offence s. 95(1) carried a maximum penalty of 10 years, however, so Mr. Jones gets the benefit of the lesser punishment. That said, the increase in penalty to 14 years certainly reflects Parliament’s view that possession of these weapons merits a very significant denunciatory sentence.

[20] Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order carries a maximum penalty of ten years. Finally, possession of a schedule I substance contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act carries a maximum penalty of seven years.

Positions Of The Crown And The Defence

[21] Ms. Kocula’s position on behalf of the Crown is that Mr. Jones should serve a global sentence of 7-8 years, less Summers credit for pre-sentence custody at the rate of 1.5:1: R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26; Criminal Code, s. 719(3.2). The sentence of 7-8 years reflects mitigation for harsh conditions of custody: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.

[22] In support of her position Ms. Kocula relies on several cases to set out the appropriate range. I will just summarize some of them:

• R. v. Hector, 2014 ONSC 1970: The offender was found guilty after a judge-alone trial of possession of a handgun, possession of a firearm in contravention of prohibition orders and a probation order; and possession of marijuana and MDMA for the purposes of trafficking. He had a long criminal record with 29 convictions. There was little hope for his rehabilitation and so denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing considerations. MacDonnell J. sentenced the offender to a global sentence of six years, less pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Slack, 2015 ONCA 94: The offender was found guilty after a judge alone trial of possession of a firearm and breaching his probation. The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including convictions for robbery, using an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, assault, drug trafficking, and breaching a weapons prohibition. This was also his second conviction for possession of a firearm together with readily accessible ammunition. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge’s 8 year global sentence (although the Court modified the amount of pre-sentence custody credited to the offender).

• R. v. Brown, [2019] O.J. No. 2846 (Sup.Ct.): The offender pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and one count of possession of a firearm in contravention of a prohibition order. The offender had an upbringing not unlike that of Mr. Jones. The offender had a criminal record that was not set out in the decision, including a significant sentence (the nature of which was not specified) for a previous firearms conviction. Kelly J. sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 7 years, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Owusu, 2018 ONCA 712: The offender was carrying a loaded firearm in his waistband while driving a car. He was youthful and had been convicted of a youth firearms offence only 10 months before he committed this offence. The Court of Appeal upheld a global sentence of 45 months imprisonment.

• R. v. David, 2019 ONSC 3758: The offender was found guilty by a jury of several counts in relation to the possession of a loaded restricted firearm including a breach of his recognizance. On a separate indictment following the jury trial, the trial judge found him guilty of three counts of breaching a weapons prohibition order, a further count of breaching a recognizance, and a count of breach of probation. The offender was a young man, only 22 at the time of the offences and 24 at the time of sentencing. He had an extensive criminal record both as a young offender and as an adult. His record including reckless discharge of a firearm and robbery with an imitation firearm. He also had an extensive record of breaching court orders. Monahan J. (as he then was) sentenced the offender to a global sentence of 8 years, less pre-sentence custody.

[23] Mr. Fitzmaurice, on behalf of Mr. Jones, argued that Mr. Jones should receive a global sentence of six years, less pre-sentence custody. He also relied on several cases to suggest that the range might be lower than that suggested by the Crown when the mitigating factors set out in the EPSR are considered. He relies, for that purpose, on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Morris from 2021. He also relies on several cases, including some relied on by the Crown:

• R. v. Morris, 2023 ONCA 816: the offender was pulled over for a traffic violation. He later attempted to escape from the officers by driving over a curb, pushing it out of the way, and then losing control and crashing into a ditch. The police located a handgun near the site of the original traffic stop. The offender was convicted of offences relating to the dangerous driving, a fail to comply with recognizance, and offences related to the possession of the handgun. The offender had a criminal record, including a conviction for possession of a loaded firearm two years prior to the index offence. The trial judgre imposed a five year sentence for the firearms possession; a consecutive sentence of one year for the breach of the weapons prohibition; a further 18 months consecutive for the driving offences; and another 3 months consecutive for the various breaches. The global sentence was, therefore 6 years and 9 months less pre-sentence custody. The Court of Appeal had the benefit of an EPSR, which the sentencing judge did not. The Court of Appeal therefore took into account some of the mitigating factors set out in the original Morris, noting that the trial judge did not have the benefit of the original Morris decision. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence by one year.

• R. v. Bell, 2020 ONSC 2632: the offender pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm trafficking marijuana, and breach of a weapons prohibition. He was 22 at the time of the offences and 25 when he was sentenced. He had a significant criminal record, including a previous conviction for possession of a loaded firearm. He did have a challenging upbringing, which Forestell J. took into account as a mitigating factor. She also took into account the fact that she was sentencing the offender during the Covid pandemic. He had significant health problems, including a heart problem requiring surgery. Forestell J. sentenced him to a global sentence of four years and seven months. She commented that it was a low sentence based on exceptional circumstances arising from Mr. Bell’s health.

• R. v. Dawkins, 2020 ONSC 4526: the offender was found guilty after a jury trial of possession of a loaded prohibited handgun and breach of a weapons prohibition. He was born in Jamaica, raised there in his early years, briefly spent time in the United States, and came to Canada at age 10. His criminal record included a conviction for robbery with a firearm where the victim was shot during a struggle; and a conviction for trafficking a Schedule I substance. Monahan J. (as he then was) sentenced the offender to six years, less pre-sentence custody.

• R. v. Sadikov, 2018 ONCA 609: the Court of Appeal upheld a 7-year global sentence for possession of a handgun and possession of significant quantities of Schedule I substances for the purposes of trafficking.

[24] After reviewing the cases, I agree, in essence, with both parties: the Crown’s suggested range of sentence of 7-8 years is well within the range of sentences for similar offenders and similar offences committed under similar circumstances. So is the defence suggested global sentence of 6 years. See: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(b).

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[25] The aggravating factors in this case are obvious. Mr. Jones has a lengthy and serious criminal record. I have already mentioned the record in detail – he was subject to five weapons prohibitions at the time of these offences, and one of those prohibitions arose out of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm. It is also aggravating that he had the firearm at the same time he had significant quantities of drugs, although, to be fair, he was found guilty of simple possession of those drugs, rather than possession for the purposes of trafficking.

[26] Regrettably, there are few mitigating factors in this case. Mr. Jones did not plead guilty, but he had an uncontested trial after an unsuccessful Charter motion. Proceeding this way certainly saved the state the resources required to prosecute him, including court time, which is at a premium in this post-pandemic world. Although it is not as mitigating as a full guilty plea before trials or motions, it is certainly mitigating. Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Jones appears to be remorseful, and I take that into account. It is also mitigating that Mr. Jones has the support of his family. The EPSR was helpful in setting out some of the mitigating factors associated with Mr. Jones’ background. He had a significantly deprived upbring. He had few advantages and many disadvantages. There was nothing in his previous life to set him up for success, and much to set him up for failure. That has an impact on his moral blameworthiness. It is also mitigating that Mr. Jones spent a great deal of time in harsh pre-trial detention, where conditions were difficult. I will have more to say about this mitigating factor in a moment.

Sentence Imposed

[27] The principles of sentencing call for a strong exemplary sentence in this case. When sentencing offenders for firearms offences, denunciation and deterrence play the primary role. As Doherty J.A. stressed in R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677 at para. 206, the most important sentencing principle in firearms cases is general deterrence:

Individuals who have loaded restricted or prohibited firearms that they have no business possessing anywhere or at any time, and who are engaged in criminal conduct or conduct that poses a danger to others should continue to receive exemplary sentences that will emphasize deterrence and denunciation.

[28] Mr. Jones would seem to be a poor candidate for rehabilitation. He is a repeat offender. He has few skills and limited education. That said, I accept and agree with his comment that he is a product of his environment – as I have emphasized, he was set up for failure, not success, by factors beyond his control. A bullet in the neck isn’t something anyone would have asked for. A bullet in the neck is also something that most people who live in comfortable surroundings in decent neighbourhoods never have to face.

[29] What is not beyond his control at this point is the very difficult and challenging road of changing his ways. He himself has recognized this. I believe him when he says that he does not wish to live this way anymore – who would? Thus, I will not completely discount the principle of rehabilitation.

[30] Mr. Jones spent time in custody from July 4, 2019 (the date of his arrest) to January 4, 2021. He obtained bail but was back in custody on May 12, 2022, and has remained in custody. In total, he has spent 1299 days in custody as of the date of sentencing. At the rate of 1.5:1 that equates to 1,948.5 days, or about 65 months: Criminal Code, s. 719(3.2); R. v. Summers, supra.

[31] I will describe some of the harsh conditions of custody. I note first that Mr. Jones was in custody during the Covid-19 pandemic. He was in custody when the pandemic first hit in early 2020 and remained in custody until January 4, 2021. He was therefore in custody during the worst of the pandemic. The institutions were locked down for days on end. Inmates found it difficult to shower, exchange clothing and bedding, or even just get outside their cells. The Covid conditions have been detailed in many cases in this Court and the Ontario Court of Justice, and I don’t think there is much more that I can add other than to note that the conditions were unusually harsh during that period.

[32] I note as well that Mr. Jones was subject to frequent lockdowns while in custody. Mr. Fitzmaurice filed the lockdown records from each detention centre. The details are as follows:

• Toronto East Detention Centre: July 4, 2019 to February 11, 2020 and November 17, 2022 to May 28, 2024 – 3 full lockdowns, 58 partial lockdowns.

• Toronto South Detention Centre: February 11, 2020 to January 4, 2021 – 7 days full lockdowns, 124 days partial lockdowns; and,

• Central East Correctional Centre: May 12, 2022 to November 17, 2022: 76 full lockdowns, 3 partial lockdowns.

[33] Mr. Jones filed an affidavit detailing the harsh conditions of custody he faced. He described the effects of the lockdowns and Covid precautions. He could not obtain fresh clothing or bedding on a regular basis. Mail and phone calls were sporadic, which meant communication with family was difficult and irregular.

[34] Perhaps most astonishingly, Mr. Jones was triple-bunked for 435 of the 770 days he was at the Toronto East Detention Centre. He described being triple-bunked in his affidavit, and his evidence was not challenged. He was required to sleep on a thin mattress on the floor, with his head either at the toilet or where the other inmates could step on him when they get out of their bunks. Because his mattress was on the floor, Mr. Jones experienced many cold nights. This exacerbated the problems he faces because of having a bullet lodged in his neck – he has nerve damage. It may be understandable that occasionally inmates are required to triple bunk when there is a shortage of cells. That said, to be triple bunked for well over a year – a year and two months – is entirely unacceptable. I should note that this statistic does not come from Mr. Jones’ affidavit. This is a statistic provided by the Toronto East Detention Centre.

[35] I take these harsh conditions of custody into account as a mitigating factor: R. v. Duncan, supra; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.

[36] I also note that the EPSR was ordered on the day that Mr. Jones had his uncontested trial before me. It was originally supposed to be ready in the fall of 2023. Through no fault of his, Mr. Jones was required to wait in remand while the EPSR was prepared. I find that this is also a mitigating factor. In R. v. Hartling, 2020 ONCA 243, the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence by five months because of the time it took to obtain a Gladue report – as in this case, well over a year. I will treat the lengthy time it took to obtain the EPSR as a mitigating factor.

[37] In imposing sentence, I take into account all of the principles of sentencing, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors, the harsh conditions of custody, and the length of time waiting for the EPSR, I find a sentence of 6 years is appropriate. I would have imposed a higher sentence, in the range suggested by the Crown, were it not for these mitigating factors.

[38] Thus, I will impose a global sentence of 6 years, or 72 months, less statutory credit of 65 months. Mr. Jones will be required to serve a further 7 months in custody.

[39] In my view, a fit sentence requires a further 7 months in custody. I will explain why. First, the credits cannot “devour” the sentence, to use Doherty J.A.’s term in R. v. Marshall. Perhaps more importantly, however, Mr. Jones will likely obtain parole at about the halfway mark. He will need support to transition into the community. Because the global sentence is more than two years, I cannot impose a rehabilitative probation order. I am hopeful, however, that probation and parole services can at least get Mr. Jones started towards accessing some of the resources that Ms. Richards mentioned in her EPSR. I ask that probation and parole receive a copy of my reasons so that they can understand why have sentenced Mr. Jones as I have.

[40] The warrant of committal will read as follows:

• Count 2: Possession of a prohibited firearm without being the holder of a licence and a registration certificate contrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code – 3 years or 36 months with credit for three years, time served;

• Count 3: Possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code – 7 months consecutive to count 5;

• Count 5: Possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without being the holder of a licence and a registration certificate contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code – 5 years and 5 months, or 65 months, with credit for 65 months, time served, concurrent to count 2;

• Count 9: Possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – 30 days with credit for 30 days, concurrent to count 2, time served.

• Count 11: Possession of heroin and fentanyl to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – 90 days with credit for 90 days, concurrent to count 2, time served.

[41] In addition to the custodial sentence, there will be a DNA order. As well, Mr. Jones will be subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: June 5, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000139-0000

DATE: 20240605

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DAYNE JONES

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

R.F. Goldstein J.