Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-50000074 DATE: 20240423 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – DAYNE SITLADEEN Accused

Counsel: Paul Zambonini/ Jessica Cheng, for the Crown Monte MacGregor, for the Respondent

HEARD: March 27, 2024

Before: A.J. O’Marra J.

Reasons for Judgment on Sentencing

[1] Dayne Sitladeen and two others, Michael Smith and Andrae Douse were charged with first degree murder in the shooting death of Mr. Blain Grindley on May 1, 2019.

[2] Mr. Sitladeen was tried separately from the other two, as his arrest had been delayed due to his flight to the United States. After his arrest for firearm offences in Minnesota and then extradited to Canada the other two parties were already set to be tried within a month of his return.

[3] On the trial of Smith and Douse, a jury found Douse not guilty and Smith not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of manslaughter. On June 24, 2022, Michael Smith was sentenced by Schreck J. to the equivalence of 9.5 years imprisonment taking into account credit for presentence custody and mitigation for detention conditions considered harsh.

[4] Mr. Sitladeen after trial by judge and jury was found not guilty of first degree murder, but guilty of manslaughter. Mr. Sitladeen is here today to be sentenced for his participation in the events that led to the death of Blain Grindley.

Circumstances of the Offence

[5] On May 1, 2019, at approximately 1:00 p.m. Mr. Sitladeen and several other parties, two of whom were Smith and Douse were driven in a black Honda Accord to a plaza on Martin Grove Road, Rexdale, Toronto. There, as captured on security video, Douse exited the vehicle and entered into a Dollar Store and purchased neck gaiters, balaclavas, and gloves. On his return into the rear of the motor vehicle, it was driven a short distance up Martin Grove Road into the parking lot of the John Garland townhouse complex where Mr. Grindley lived.

[6] On the motor vehicle being parked security video from various locations in the complex captured Mr. Sitladeen and two others, one of whom was Smith, exit the motor vehicle wearing the masks, hoods up and gloves. They proceeded to walk through the housing complex directly to the unit where Mr. Grindley resided. Mr. Sitladeen, wearing a grey Champion track suit carried a bar-like object and led the other two through the complex to Grindley’s unit.

[7] While in that location the men were off camera for approximately 50 seconds, after which they were seen to run back through the same pathways in the complex to the waiting black Honda Accord. Immediately on them entering into the vehicle it was driven away.

[8] Examination of the scene revealed that an altercation had occurred at the front entrance to the unit with damage to the sliding mirrored door of the hall closet. In the altercation, Mr. Grindley was shot once in the chest. A 9-millimeter shell casing was located just outside of the front entrance of the residence. Paramedics on arrival found Mr. Grindley in his bedroom off the entrance hallway vital signs absent and unable to be resuscitated. According to the forensic pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination he succumbed to the wound within minutes of being shot. In the police investigation a large sum of money, over $9700.00 was found on his bed.

[9] There is no evidence on the trial as to which of the three men had possession of the firearm and fired the fatal shot.

[10] A neighbour testified on hearing the shot he saw three men run from Mr. Grindley’s unit and one of the men put a small gun into his waistband, but he could not say which one of them.

[11] In this case there was evidence of a plan to carry out an offence. What offence is unknown. However, it was evident the three men were part of a plan that required them to obscure their identity by being masked and gloved. They were prepared for a confrontation. Mr. Sitladeen carrying a bar-like object hidden initially up his sleeve and removed on the approach to the residence as he led the way directly to Mr. Grindley’s residence. One of the men carried a loaded firearm. The circumstances of the offenders being masked and carrying weapons lends support to the occurrence having been an attempt at a home invasion and robbery. However, there is no evidence to explain why Mr. Grindley was shot to death.

[12] Mr. Sitladeen was found guilty of manslaughter by jury either on the basis of his being an aider or as party to an unlawful common purpose that resulted in Mr. Grindley’s death.

Victim Impact Statements

[13] Blaine Grindley was 26 years of age at the time of his death. He was described by his parents, Allison Ashley and Gerald Grindley as having been a hardworking young man whose most recent employment was with a construction and demolition company. They described how he is greatly missed by them and his younger brother who idolized him.

[14] He was described as having been a shy mild-mannered, yet charismatic kind soul, and awesome big brother.

[15] His parents spoke of the exquisite agony of having lost a child, his lost future and the continuing ramifications his loss in all of their lives. His mother spoke most eloquently of the consequence of his death:

“Blaine’s life is not the only life that was taken that day. I feel like I also lost mine. I don’t know how to live in a world that he’s no longer a part of, and I believe that’s the closest thing to hell. Our hearts are forever broken, and our lives will never be the same. So many lives were taken with his, so many dreams that will never be. Maybe now that we are at the end of this process, I can breathe and try to begin the process of healing. There will never be enough words that can describe the pain I live with daily. The memories I have of him at times help me to keep going as he is my biggest cheerleader. I think about what he would want me to do and the person I know he was, and I try to do my best to make him proud. I am still waiting for time to heal the pain that is in my heart, but I don’t think it ever will. I know the pain will only go away when I see his face and hold him in my arms again. Then and only then will all be well again”.

The Offender

[16] Mr. Sitladeen, now 32 was 28 years of age at the time of the offence. His arrest and trial on this matter as noted above was delayed due to his flight to the United States after the offence. A Canada wide warrant for his arrest was issued May 15, 2019. Smith and Douse turned themselves in to police in May 2019 and proceeded to their trial in April 2022.

[17] On January 10, 2021, Mr. Sitladeen was arrested with another person found to be transporting 67 firearms, magazines and ammunition in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was charged there with illegal possession and trafficking firearms. On December 20, 2021, he pleaded guilty to the American charges and was sentenced to 78 months, (6.5 years) imprisonment. Subsequently, he was ordered extradited to Canada. He was returned to Canada on March 17, 2022. The service of the sentence imposed in the United States has continued while imprisoned here.

[18] Mr. Sitladeen has an extensive criminal record of violence and possession of firearms. As a young offender commencing in August 2007 he received sentences for offences of obstruct peace officer, break, enter and theft, robbery, possession of a scheduled substance, aggravated assault and unauthorized possession of a firearm. As an adult, on November 22, 2011, he was sentenced to 4.5 years for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition and fail to comply offences. He was sentenced on March 6, 2012, for carrying a concealed weapon, and on November 14, 2015, assault causing bodily harm.

Presentence Report

[19] In a presentence report prepared in the matter it noted he was raised by a single mother in the Rexdale/Jamestown area of Toronto until he was 11 or 12. There was a move to Brampton where he lived until he was approximately 15 or 16 when his mother relocated to Calgary for employment. He remained in Toronto at that time and stayed between an aunt’s residence and his elder brothers.

[20] He reported that growing up he experienced gun violence. He claimed to have been “shot at” numerous times. He lost two close friends, an uncle and one of his brothers to gun violence.

[21] He has some brief history of factory and warehouse work. He became involved in rap and hip hop music and released songs under the name of “Yung Lava”.

[22] He has a girlfriend of some three years and two children, daughters aged 5 and 4 from a previous relationship with another woman. Notwithstanding his incarceration he still has remained in contact with them.

[23] Mr. Sitladeen denies any gang affiliation or association with a gang from the Jamestown neighbourhood, the Jamestown Crips. Notwithstanding his denials, in the lyrics of his various Rap songs under titles, “On da Block”, 1800, “No Hook” and “Conversation”, he makes multiple references to the protection of the territory by the use of guns, violence and to provocative insults to rival gangs.

[24] On a pretrial motion in this matter, Detective Constable Kevin Sarjoo, Toronto Police Service, Guns and Gangs Task Force, whose expertise in gang culture was not contested, testified as to his review of Mr. Sitladeen’s You Tube posted music and videos. Based on Mr. Sitladeen’s lyrics, hand gestures and tattoos, he opined they reflected his involvement with a Rexdale gang, the Jamestown Crips.

[25] Sadly, whether he was a member or associate of a gang, notwithstanding the tragic experience of losing friends and relatives to gun violence, he glorifies it in his lyrics.

[26] There has been some positive use of time while detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre. He has been involved with the Urban Rez Solution Social Enterprise which provides programs in which Mr. Sitladeen has completed four certificates involving cultural identity, financial literacy, transformative change, and personal declaration. He has prepared a plan of action on release to register for apprenticeship training in carpentry. Further, he wants to continue to focus on his music career by starting a production company.

[27] At the conclusion at the sentencing hearing Mr. Sitladeen proffered a statement in which he declared his remorse and asked for “understanding in this trying time”. Further, he stated he is “taking control of my choices and holding myself accountable for my actions moving forward”. However, as noted in the presentence report his expression of remorse was “for being at the scene of the crime”.

Position of the Parties

[28] The Crown submits that Mr. Sitladeen should receive a sentence of 15 years to life incarceration as a result of his having an atrocious criminal record, which displays an escalating life of criminality, his participation in a plan that involved wearing a mask, gloves and use of a firearm to which he was a party. His co-accused, tried separately, Mr. Michael Smith also convicted of manslaughter with a much less serious criminal record received a sentence equivalent to 9.5 years.

[29] Defence counsel submits that notwithstanding his serious criminal record involving firearms there is no evidence that he was the leader or gang affiliated at the time of the offence. Counsel recommends a sentence of 7-8 years imprisonment.

General Sentencing Principles

[30] Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of a number of objectives.

[31] Those objectives include denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence of the offender and others who might be similarly inclined, separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

[32] Further, the sanction imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The total sentence should not be unduly harsh. The court should also take into consideration that the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

[33] The relative importance of each of the objectives of sentencing will vary depending on the offender and the offence. The sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

[34] Our courts have stressed time and again that sentences for offences involving firearms must further the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the public. In R. v. Danvers (2005), 199 CCC (3d) 490 (ONCA) a murder case involving the use of a firearm Armstrong JA stated at para. 77:

Death by firearms in public places in Toronto plague this city and must be deterred, denounced and stopped. Only the imposition of exemplary sentences will serve to deter criminals from arming themselves with handguns. In particular, the use of handguns in public places cries out for lengthy increased periods of parole eligibility. Society must be protected from criminals armed with deadly handguns.

[35] Further, as noted in R. v. Doucette, 2015 ONCA 583 at para. 59 “the use of guns in Toronto is a scourge to this community and must be stopped. The use of guns can be deterred only by the imposition of exemplary sentences”.

Applicable Sentence Range

[36] In R. v. Hermiz (2007), 73 WCB (2d) 689, it was noted that the crime of manslaughter attracts a broad range of sentence depending on the circumstances of the offence and offender. The sentence for manslaughter must reflect society’s denunciation for the taking of a human life while at the same time acknowledging manslaughter is not seen to be as blameworthy as murder due to the absence of intent.

[37] A number of cases from the Ontario Court of Appeal suggest that the appropriate range for manslaughter is between 8-12 years. However, in R. v. Warner, 2019 ONCA 1014 at para. 14 it is noted that where offenders have a high degree of moral culpability as aiders or abettors to manslaughter the jurisprudence suggests sentences of 12 or 13 years as being generally appropriate, (see R. v. Thompson [2005] O.J. No. 3351, affirmed 2008 ONCA 693; R. v. Jones-Solomon, 2015 ONCA 654; R. v. Chretien, [2009] O.J. No. 2578; R. v. Dirie, 2018 ONSC 5536; R. v. Monk, 2003 BCSC 449 affirmed 2005 BCCA 394).

[38] In R. v. Almarales, 2008 ONCA 692, [2008] O.J. No. 3937 a 20-year sentence for being a party to a shooting was reduced to 12 years in the circumstances where the offender had no gun. He fired no shots, his responsibility as determined by the jury, was as a secondary participant in an unlawful killing that was not murder.

[39] In R. v. Thompson, 2008 ONCA 693 the appellant court upheld a 13-year sentence where the accused was an active participant in a bank robbery where he brandished a handgun to threaten people and continue to do so after a clerk was fatally shot. On sentencing him the judge found that “there is no evidence that Kemar Thompson knew the violence his confederates would resort to during the robbery”, nor that he “knew that any person had been shot during the robbery”. However, it is noted that he was present and masked and carrying a handgun.

[40] In R. v. Jones-Solomon a 13-year sentence was upheld where the accused had been a part of a planned home invasion in which beating and severely assaulting the victim was part of the plan.

[41] In R. v. Atherley, [2009] O.J. No. 384 the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 15 years for offenders who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for a violent home invasion. Both offenders had lengthy criminal records.

[42] In sentencing Michael Smith to an equivalent of 9.5 years Schreck J. noted that a significant aggravating factor was that he was aware of the firearm and that there is a consistent theme in sentencing jurisprudence that significant sentences must be imposed for offences where guns are involved. Another aggravating factor was that the three men had planned the offence to some degree having purchased gloves, face coverings and went directly to Mr. Grindley’s home armed. While he had a prior criminal record none of the convictions resulted in significant terms of imprisonment. In mitigation, he had strong family support, a history of steady employment and had expressed remorse that was considered sincere. In addition, it was noted that Smith had turned himself in after the warrant was issued for his arrest.

[43] In considering the aggravating factors applicable to Mr. Sitladeen, he has a criminal history involving violence - aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm and possession of firearms. There is an obvious escalation of serious criminality as reflected in his record and involvement most recently in the death of Mr. Grindley. There was a degree of planning involved. The offenders wore masks, gloves and at least one of them carried a firearm used in the offence.

[44] I consider as well in viewing the video surveillance that he led the charge from the parking lot directly to Mr. Grindley’s residence while in possession of a bar-like object initially hidden up his sleeve which might reasonably be considered as a weapon.

[45] Based on his actions, as displayed in the surveillance videos, I am satisfied that he had a leadership role in the events that unfolded in Mr. Grindley’s residence.

[46] I consider his flight as well to the United States and continued criminal involvement in possession of illegal firearms there - consistent with his criminal record and escalation of his criminal behaviour. Both actions speak negatively as to his rehabilitation potential and to his acceptance of responsibility.

[47] I considered parity of disposition with Smith, however Mr. Sitladeen has significantly more aggravating features to his involvement.

[48] I take into account however, he appears to have some rehabilitative prospects having engaged in programming available to him while detained with a view to gaining meaningful employment on release into the community. Further, he is reported to have completed his high school education while serving a custodial sentence in prison.

[49] While Mr. Sitladeen has expressed remorse, it is remorse that focuses on his circumstances as opposed to any remorse for the harm he has done to others. As noted in the presentence report his remorse was for being at the scene of the crime. His articulated remorse on sentencing has been for the choices he has made and the predicament in which he finds himself. It is a sop to his own circumstances.

[50] He offered condolences to the bereaved parents and family of the deceased but assumes no responsibility, and the question of why Mr. Grindley died goes unanswered.

Sentence

[51] Based on the significant aggravating factors and the limited considerations in mitigation I consider a fit and proper sentence for Mr. Sitladeen to be in the upper range as acknowledged by our Court of Appeal in the cases cited above. The sentence imposed is 13 years imprisonment.

[52] Pursuant to s. 719 (3) Mr. Sitladeen would be entitled to credit for time spent in custody pending trial and sentenced on a one for one day basis, and under (3.1) of the Criminal Code if the circumstances justify it he could receive credit of 1.5 days for each day spent in custody. However, since his transfer to Canada March 17, 2022, he has been serving the sentence imposed in the United States. The time spent in custody here while he has been temporarily surrendered to Canada is counted toward his U.S. sentence. Counsel agree that he is not entitled to pre-sentence custody credit.

[53] Further, I am advised that while he has been temporarily surrendered here he had the option to have been transferred to a federal facility to serve the U.S. sentence but chose to remain in detention.

[54] Additionally, I am of the view he is not entitled to mitigation considerations as set out in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 for his remaining in detention and subject to harsher conditions, which he might have avoided on transfer to a federal facility.

[55] Pursuant to s. 718.3 (4)(a) of the Criminal Code I direct that the sentence of 13 years imprisonment should be served consecutively to any remaining sentence he has to serve for the sentence imposed in the United States.

[56] Pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code Mr. Sitladeen is prohibited from possessing any firearms, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition or explosives for life.

[57] Further pursuant to s. 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code Mr. Sitladeen ordered to provide a sample of his DNA to be included in the National DNA databank.

A.J. O’Marra J. Released: April 23, 2024