COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-30001932024
DATE: 20240214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DAVID WEBSTER
Levi Vandersteen, for the Crown
Kurt Wildman, for Mr. Webster
HEARD: September 5, 2023
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
R. MAXWELL J.
[1] On May 1, 2023, Mr. Webster was found guilty of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm and careless storage of ammunition, contrary to ss. 95(1) and 86(1) of the Criminal Code, and possession of fentanyl and crack cocaine, contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the “CDSA”).
[2] Mr. Webster’s case was determined by an application brought by Mr. Webster challenging the admissibility of the firearm and controlled substances seized pursuant to a search warrant. He challenged the validity of the search warrant and sought to have the evidence excluded under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter (the “Garofoli application”). At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Webster indicated that if the Garofoli application was not successful, he conceded the Crown’s case.
[3] On May 1, 2023, I dismissed the Garofoli application and, based on agreed facts read in by the Crown, found Mr. Webster guilty on three counts.
[4] The matter was adjourned a number of times in order for Mr. Webster to gather materials for the sentencing hearing. Ultimately, the sentencing hearing proceeded on January 9, 2024.
[5] These are my reasons for judgment on sentence.
The Facts
[6] The facts, as read in by the Crown and accepted by Mr. Webster, can be briefly summarized.
[7] In October 2020, Members of the 55 Division Major Crime unit entered into a drug investigation regarding Mr. Webster. Officers applied for and were granted a CDSA search warrant for Mr. Webster's home address of 102 Woodfern Drive in Scarborough and a motor vehicle he had been renting.
[8] On November 2, 2020, 55 Division Major Crime Unit Officers executed the warrant. Mr. Webster was located inside the home and was placed under arrest.
[9] Inside Mr. Webster’s closet was a .40 calibre Sig Sauer handgun loaded with 7 rounds of .40 calibre ammunition. The handgun is a restricted firearm as defined by s. 84 of the Code. Mr. Webster was not certified or licensed to be in possession of the firearm.
[10] Also located in Mr. Webster’s closet was 95 additional rounds of .40 calibre ammunition. The Sig Sauer handgun was capable of discharging the ammunition as well as the ammunition in its magazine.
[11] In Mr. Webster’s room, police also located small plastic bags containing .22 grams of crack cocaine, 0.05 grams of fentanyl, and 0.09 grams of fentanyl as well as two digital scales, $1550 cash, and drug packaging materials.
Positions of the Parties
[12] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Vandersteen seeks a sentence for possession of the firearm of 3 years in custody, less pre-sentence custody. He seeks an additional 30 days in custody consecutive to the sentence for the firearm for careless storage of the ammunition. Finally, Mr. Vandersteen seeks a 30-day concurrent sentence on the count of possession of a controlled substance. Mr. Vandersteen also seeks a s. 109 order for 10 years and a DNA order.
[13] On behalf of Mr. Webster, Mr. Wildman asks that I impose a sentence of 2 years less 1 day, to be served as a conditional sentence with a term of house arrest for most or all of the conditional sentence. In the alternative, he asks that I consider imposing a conditional sentence in combination with an intermittent sentence. He submits that Mr. Webster’s degree of moral blameworthiness is attenuated because of his personal history, including his experiences with anti-black racism, and that, when consideration is given for Mr. Webster’s excellent rehabilitation prospects, including the fact that he is a youthful first-time offender, and credit is given for his time spent subject to strict bail conditions, a conditional sentence is an appropriate sentence in this case.
Circumstances of the Offender
[14] Voluminous materials were filed on behalf of Mr. Webster on the sentencing hearing which provide an in depth look at many aspects of Mr. Webster’s life. The seven volumes of material filed include:
- A Pre-Sentence Report and a Psychotherapist’s Assessment addressing the role of anti-black racism on Mr. Webster’s life;
- Mr. Webster’s employment history;
- Mr. Webster’s education;
- Mr. Webster’s family including letters of support;
- Mr. Webster’s volunteer commitments;
- Mr. Webster’s bail history; and
- Mr. Webster’s time in custody pending trial.
[15] The Psychotherapist’s Assessment, which functions as an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report, was prepared by Zaria Duncan, a social worker and trained psychotherapist who has been practicing for 22 years and has specific knowledge of the systemic expression of an impact of anti-black racism on people within the black community. I found Ms. Duncan’s detailed 20-page report to be very helpful in providing a comprehensive picture of Mr. Webster’s life experiences.
[16] Mr. Webster is 23 years old. He was approximately 20 years old at the time of the offences. Mr. Webster was born in Toronto. He has lived his entire life in Scarborough with his mother, Barbara. Mr. Webster’s mother and father were married, but they divorced in 2007 when Mr. Webster was seven years old. He has an older sister and six paternal half-siblings. Mr. Webster’s mother is white and his father is black. The report notes that while Mr. Webster identifies as a person of mixed race, he is aware that society sees him, and he experiences his interactions in society, as a black man.
[17] While Mr. Webster enjoyed a stable homelife with his mother, his father was not a presence in his life growing up. As part of their divorce settlement, Mr. Webster’s father was able to visit Mr. Webster as he wanted by dropping by the home. The result of this arrangement unfortunately, was that Mr. Webster was left waiting for his father, who would frequently not show up for planned visits. Mr. Webster’s mother recounted that these experiences left Mr. Webster profoundly sad and disappointed. He saw his father only sporadically and did not have a close relationship with him. He lacked a male role model in his life.
[18] Mr. Webster recounted that by the age of 16, his friend group became his primary focus and he withdrew from his family. He began to use marijuana to cope with feelings of hopelessness and because it gained him a degree of social acceptance among his peers. He began making poor decisions, going to school less resulting in declining grades. Over time, he became drawn to “the life” meaning a life of illegal activity.
[19] As a child, Mr. Webster experienced racism by his teachers and classmates. His mother recounted that she had to advocate for her son when a teacher at school was bullying and shaming him, which took an emotional toll on Mr. Webster, caused a negative impact on his grades, and disrupted his sense of safety and belonging at school. He reported also feeling trapped and bored at school.
[20] As he grew older, he experienced what he perceived to be unfair and racially motivated interactions with the police. He was “carded” in his neighborhood and experienced being stopped and frisked. His mother was told by police that he was part of a gang, which Mr. Webster reported was not true, causing his mother significant worry, and making him feel angry because he perceived the police as being indifferent to the impact such accusations would have on him. He was also falsely accused, as a young person, of having stolen a car. He described this experience as making him feel powerless and that he had no recourse to deal with an unfair situation.
[21] His experiences with racism carried over into his early experiences in the workplace. He was subjected to derogatory racial slurs and disrespectful behaviour. He was directed to perform illegal and unsafe work such as asbestos removal in the absence of training or to do roof work without a safety harness. His early work experiences left him feeling both that he was constantly at risk of losing his job if he refused to do anything his employer asked and further, that he could not be successful in traditional forms of work where he was treated unfairly and disrespectfully.
[22] Mr. Webster lacked an adult presence in his life to help him navigate these experiences of racism and discrimination. His mother reported that she did not fully understand what he was experiencing, or how to help him.
[23] Mr. Webster described feeling apathy, helplessness and fear growing up, but that he did not talk about his feelings or troubles with his family, believing it was a sign of weakness. He recounted that by the age of 16, his friend group became his primary focus and he withdrew from his family. As noted earlier, he began to use marijuana to cope with feelings of hopelessness and for social acceptance among his peers. He began making poor decisions, which led to going to school less, and declining grades. Over time, he became drawn to “the life”, which eventually resulted in the current charges before the court.
[24] Mr. Webster has seen many positive changes in his life since he incurred the charges for which he is being sentenced today. First, Mr. Webster is the father of two children – a son age 2 years and a daughter, who is 11 months old. Mr. Webster sees his son on the weekends, pursuant to a Family Court order and supports his son through child support. His daughter and her mother live with Mr. Webster and his mother and sister.
[25] It appears that having children has had a very positive impact on Mr. Webster and his sense of responsibility for, and accountability to, others. The mother of Mr. Webster’s daughter, Shannon Stewart, submitted a letter of support as part of the sentencing hearing. She describes Mr. Webster as a very present father to their daughter, spending quality time with her every day. She observed that he strives to be a role model to his children and takes pride in being a role-model to his children by working to be a better dad and taking pride in his work.
[26] Mr. Webster’s mother also submitted a letter of support on behalf of Mr. Webster. She feels Mr. Webster has matured considerably since the birth of his children and that he contributes meaningfully to their lives as a provider and as a father.
[27] Secondly, Mr. Webster has established a consistent work record. He obtained a job at Domino’s Pizza in July of 2021. Around that same time, he was accepted into the Youth Collaboration Program, a paid job training program. Thereafter, in December of 2021, he was hired as a driver for Norris Roofing and Contracting. His employer described him as hard-working, responsible, consistent, and trustworthy. In November of 2022, he was offered employment as a labourer on a full-time basis with Telecon Inc. Expercom Telecommunications where he works presently. It is notable that Mr. Webster was able to gain and maintain these employment opportunities while he has been on bail for these charges.
[28] The third important development relates to education. Mr. Webster completed a course in Business Fundamentals in the Spring of 2022, an important step toward his future goal of owning his own business.
[29] Finally, after reaching out to numerous organizations to offer volunteer hours, without success, Mr. Webster was able to secure a volunteer opportunity with Habitat for Humanity, where he completed over 160 hours of community service.
[30] Ms. Duncan observed in her report that Mr. Webster’s positive experiences with his current employer, coupled with his volunteer work, have given him a sense of pride and purpose in what he does for a living. His children, partner, and mother all provide him with motivation to continue on a more positive path. He has taken steps to insulate himself from poor peer influences. Importantly, he expressed a desire to interrupt the legacy of anti-black racism and prevent another generation from growing up without a father or role model. He has a goal of running his own business and to be more involved in his community as an advocate and supporter, particularly for his children and other children living in the community. As he stated to the author of the pre-sentence report, “I feel like I made mistakes in my life. I need to do positive things to make up. I feel the responsibility to my children to not make poor decisions anymore and display what it means to be a good member of the community.”
Principles of Sentencing
[31] I begin with the most fundamental principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code.
[32] The overriding purpose of sentencing is to encourage respect for the law and the maintenance of a “just, peaceful and safe society”. As the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 58, the individualization of the sentencing process means that these objectives will not necessarily point to the same sentencing disposition. Sentencing judges need to prioritize and blend different objectives of sentencing so as to properly reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
[33] Section 718.1 provides that the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence I impose must reflect the circumstances of the offence and the attributes of the individual responsible for the crime: see also R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at para. 37.
[34] In terms of the gravity of the offence, there can be no question that the gravity of the offences committed by Mr. Webster is significant. Protection of the public must be among the predominant sentencing objectives. The sentence I impose must denounce the dangerous conduct and deter Mr. Webster from this conduct in the future. Denunciation and deterrence, even in the face of significant mitigating factors, must be of paramount consideration when it comes to firearm offences because of the plague of gun violence in the city and the profound consequences firearms have on community safety: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773; R. v. Danvers (2005), 2005 CanLII 30044 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, 277 O.A.C. 233; R. v. Delchev, 2014 ONCA 448, 323 O.A.C. 19; R. v. Dufour, 2015 ONCA 426, 326 C.C.C. (3d) 52.
[35] In terms of Mr. Webster’s responsibility for the offences, the fact that Mr. Webster chose to possess a loaded firearm, and that he also possessed controlled substances leads to the inference that he contemplated situations where he would use the firearm for its intended purpose, if necessary. While I accept, based on the reports, that Mr. Webster also feels threatened in his community, having previously been the victim of a robbery at gunpoint and other serious violence in his neighborhood, the threat of his conduct, possessing a firearm and controlled substances, is very clear and is an aggravating factor, which I will comment further on in these reasons.
[36] With that said, Mr. Webster’s degree of responsibility requires consideration of his moral blame worthiness in the context of his background, life experiences, and personal characteristics: Morris, at para. 88.
[37] None of Mr. Webster’s background factors serve as an excuse for his criminal conduct. He made very poor choices and must meet the consequences for those negative choices. However, what is also clear is that Mr. Webster has met with many disadvantages in his life which, I accept, can be directly linked to systemic anti-black racism. He grew up without a father figure in his life and without anyone who could help him navigate his experiences with anti-black racism. He experienced anti-black racism in school and in his employment. He experienced negative interactions with the police. He lived in a community where he experienced actual and threatened violence against him. His experiences overall, I accept, contributed to his perception that he was not valued within traditional work streams and that his prospects for social and professional advancement were very limited. The link between these types of social disadvantages and anti-black racism is something that the court in Morris observed, at para. 42, is properly the subject of judicial notice.
[38] Mr. Webster’s choices in life must be viewed in context and lead to a conclusion that his degree of moral blameworthiness for his crimes is less than it would have been in the absence of these background factors. His degree of responsibility, while high, is mitigated by the systemic and background factors set out in the reports and these reasons.
The Appropriate Sentence
[39] Sentencing ranges and a review of similar cases are useful in ensuring that the parity principle is met and that similar penalties are imposed for similar offences of a similar nature involving similar offenders. Sentencing ranges are, however, only guidelines. The sentencing of an individual is, necessarily, an individualized process, as the Supreme Court reiterated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089.
[40] As explained by Doherty J.A. in R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677, 117 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 51, aff’d 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773, at para. 82, s. 95 offences apply to a wide range of conduct:
At one end of the spectrum stands the outlaw who carried a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade. By any reasonable measure, this person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public. At the other end of the spectrum stands the otherwise law-abiding responsible gun owner who has possession of an unloaded restricted or prohibited firearm, but with readily accessible ammunition stored nearby. That person has a licence and registration certificate for the firearm, but knowingly possesses the firearm at a place that falls outside of the terms of that licence. That person’s conduct may well pose little, if any, risk to others.
[41] In my view, Mr. Webster falls between the two extremes. While his conduct is clearly not in the nature of a regulatory offence, he is also not purely an “outlaw” who carried a firearm as a tool of his criminal trade. While it is true that Mr. Webster was found to be in possession of a quantity of controlled substances, the quantities were not sufficient for charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking. While there may be an inference available that Mr. Webster was involved in the drug trade, based on the information available to me, I am not prepared to sentence him as though his conduct rests on the highest end of the spectrum of culpability, although he is closer to the “true crime” end of the spectrum than he is to the regulatory end of the spectrum. Therefore, while I am guided by the caselaw which often cites a 3-5 year range for s. 95 offences, lower sentences in the upper reformatory or lower penitentiary range have been imposed in cases in the middle of the spectrum, where the firearm is not possessed in connection with other criminal activity: R. v. Smickle, 2013 ONCA 678, 2014 ONCA 678, 304 C.C.C. (3d) 371, at para. 30; R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONSC 2688, at para. 38.
[42] In order to locate the appropriate sentence within a range of possible sentences, I must consider the aggravating and mitigating factors. The clear aggravating factor in this case is that Mr. Webster possessed a loaded firearm while carelessly storing ammunition and possessing controlled substances.
[43] In mitigation, Mr. Webster is a first-time offender and is relatively young. As detailed above, he has the benefit of a supportive family and has shown that he is capable of living a pro-social life, particularly over the three years that he has been subjected to a strict bail.
[44] Mr. Webster also asks that I consider, as mitigating on sentence, the fact that he spent a lengthy period of time on bail subject to restrictive conditions. Mr. Webster has spent over 1140 days on bail. The first seven months of his bail were spent on strict house arrest with no exceptions. He eventually received exceptions for work and volunteering, but fundamentally, he did not see any significant increase in his personal liberty over the course of his time on bail. His time on house arrest was particularly onerous because it came during the pandemic when isolation precautions were put in place across the country. His bail also required the surety to carry a GPS monitored device which could be monitored by the police. The house was also equipped with police accessible cameras, with a messaging app attached to the cameras in order for police to contact Mr. Webster. These measures, while necessary given the nature of the offences, are a significant invasion into the privacy of Mr. Webster and his family, something his mother remarked on in her letter to the court for this sentencing hearing.
[45] Time spent subject to restrictive bail conditions should be taken into account on sentencing: R. v. Downes, (2006), 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 33. This is a mitigating factor which must be considering in arriving at a fit sentence for Mr. Webster: R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733; R. v. C.C. 2021 ONCA 600; at para. 4. I take this factor into consideration as a mitigating factor on Mr. Webster’s sentence.
[46] A further mitigating factor is that Mr. Webster conceded the Crown’s case, subject to the outcome of the Garofoli application. While not warranting the mitigating value of guilty plea, the concession nevertheless saved the court the time and resources of having a full trial on the matter. Moreover, while Mr. Webster was not successful on his s. 8 application, there were legitimate issues raised on the application and it cannot be said to have been meritless. I consider this factor to have some limited mitigating value on sentence.
[47] Having balanced all of the mitigating factors, the aggravating factors, the circumstances of Mr. Webster, and the circumstances of the offence, I conclude that the appropriate sentence in this case is in the range of 2 years.
[48] The Ontario Court of Appeal noted in Morris, at para. 180 that when the appropriate sentence in a case includes a sentence below the two-year mark, a sentencing judge must give careful consideration to the imposition of a conditional sentence. The court went on to state that a conditional sentence, properly used, can ameliorate the longstanding problem of over-incarceration of young Black men.
[49] Further, the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2001] S.C.R. 61, at para. 79 and restated in R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736, at para. 30, a conditional sentence, in addition to being more effective than incarceration in achieving goals of rehabilitation, is also a punitive sanction capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence.
[50] Section 742.1(a) of the Code sets out two prerequisites for such a sentence. The first is that service of the sentence must not endanger the safety of the community. I am satisfied that it would not in this case. Mr. Webster has no criminal record nor any history of contact with the criminal justice system. Mr. Webster has been on bail since 2020 and as far as I am aware has abided by his bail conditions. I am satisfied that Mr. Webster is not a danger to public safety.
[51] The second prerequisite in s. 742.1(a) is that a conditional sentence must be “consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.”.
[52] I have already touched on the fundamental principles of sentencing which apply to this case. Denunciation and deterrence, as well as protection of the public are of paramount concern. In the circumstances of Mr. Webster, the principles of restraint and rehabilitation are also important sentencing factors.
[53] On the issue of rehabilitation, as the court observed in Morris, at para. 102, “social context evidence can provide valuable insight on the need for deterrence from future conduct, and the rehabilitative prospects of an offender. Mr. Webster is a first time offender with no criminal record. He has expressed remorse for this conduct. He has abided by his bail conditions. There is strong rehabilitative potential. As many courts have noted, the objective of rehabilitation, where there are good prospects for rehabilitation, can go further toward achieving the fundamental purposes of general and specific deterrence: see Nur, at para. 113-114; Proulx, at para. 107.
[54] The information provided through the reports in this case provides a basis to give added weight to the principle of rehabilitation as an operating principle in this sentencing.
[55] On behalf of Mr. Webster, Mr. Wildman provided a number of examples of cases in which youthful first-time offenders have been sentenced to conditional sentences for possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Code. Those cases included examples of young black offenders being granted conditional sentences for firearm offences, including R. v. Desmond Robinson, 2022 ONCA 369, R. v. Marier, 2023 ONSC 5194, R. v. Yogo, 2023 ONSC 4144, R. v. Brown, 2023 ONSC 3684, and R. v. Beharry, 2022 ONSC 4340.
[56] Each case turned on their own facts, but there are common ties between this case and those cases. A conditional sentence can be appropriate in a case involving firearms where the circumstances suggest that the competing objectives can be satisfied through a sufficiently punitive conditional sentence to give effect to denunciation and deterrence.
[57] Specifically, in Desmond-Robinson, at para. 13, the Court of Appeal made it clear that conditional sentences can be appropriate in firearm offences:
We understand the trial judge to be saying that, even where the appropriate sentence is under two years imprisonment, making the conditional sentencing provisions potentially applicable, this court has held that the seriousness of gun offences precludes resort to a conditional sentence. With respect, this court has not made that pronouncement. In fact, in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 (released after the trial judge’s reasons for sentence), this court recognized that conditional sentences may well be appropriate in cases like this one: Morris, at paras. 124-28, 180-81.
The Sentence in this Case
[58] I turn now to the appropriate sentence in this case.
[59] Having regard to the circumstances of the offence, denunciation and deterrence are paramount concern. However, given that Mr. Webster is a first-time offender with no prior criminal antecedence and strong rehabilitative potential, the principle of restraint and rehabilitation are also important considerations. Mr. Webster has demonstrated his ability to live in the community without committing criminal offences.
[60] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that, with onerous conditions such as house arrest imposed, a conditional sentence achieves a level of denunciation. I am of the view that denunciation and deterrence can be achieved, as can rehabilitation with the imposition of a period of imprisonment served as a conditional sentence.
[61] On count 1 possession of a prohibited firearm, Mr. Webster will be sentenced to 2 years less one day as a conditional sentence. The conditional sentence will be followed by 1 year of probation.
[62] The terms of the conditional sentence will be as follows:
- In addition to the statutory conditions in s. 742.3 of the Code, Mr. Webster shall report to a supervisor forthwith and attend as often as his supervisor deems appropriate. He shall reside at an address approved by his supervisor;
- He shall be under house arrest for the first eight months of the conditional sentence and shall only leave the house for the purpose of attending at appointments with his supervisor, to attend medical emergencies for himself or a member of his family, to shop as permitted by the conditional sentence supervisor once each week for no more than four hours to obtain necessities, for the purpose of work at a specified schedule provided to his supervisor and to leave the house for any other reason as approved in advance by his supervisor;
- For the next eight months, Mr. Webster shall be on a curfew between the hours of 10:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. and he shall reside at an address approved by his supervisor. He may only leave the house during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. if he has the permission of his supervisor or for medical emergencies involving himself or a member of his household or for work purposes provided that his supervisor has approved the schedule or any other reason with the prior written approval of his supervisor;
- For the remainder of the conditional sentence, he shall reside at a place approved by his supervisor and he shall be subject to the statutory conditions;
- Mr. Webster shall take counselling as directed by his supervisor, particularly psychological counselling to address his personal healing and growth, and counseling related to life skills, such as parenting, substance use, and maintaining gainful employment;
- He shall sign any releases necessary to monitor his participation and progress in counseling;
- He will perform 75 hours of community service within the first 18 months of his conditional sentence.
[63] At the conclusion of his conditional sentence, he will be placed on probation for one year. In addition to the statutory terms, he will report to his probation officer forthwith and thereafter as directed, he will not possess any firearms or weapons as defined by the Code; and he will continue to attend for counseling as directed by his probation officer and sign releases to monitor his participation and progress in counselling.
[64] On the count of careless storage of ammunition, Mr. Webster’s pre-sentence custody on an enhanced Summers credit basis, and with consideration for additional credit pursuant to R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, will be credited as the equivalent of 60 days in custody. The passing of sentence will be suspended. Mr. Webster will be placed on probation for one year, the probation to commence after the completion of his conditional sentence and run concurrent to the probation on count 1 and subject to all of the same terms.
[65] On the counts of possession of a controlled substance, the passing of sentence will be suspended and Mr. Webster will be placed on probation for one year, concurrent to the probation on count 1 and subject to all of the same terms.
[66] There will be a number of ancillary orders.
[67] I make an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Webster from possessing any firearms, ammunition, and other weapons as defined by the Code for 10 years.
[68] There will be an order under s. 487.051 of the Code authorizing the taking of a sample of a bodily substance that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.[^1]
[69] Subject to any questions or need for clarification, I thank both counsel for their assistance. I wish Mr. Webster good luck.
Justice R. Maxwell
Released: February 14, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-30001932024
DATE: 20240214
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
DAVID WEBSTER
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
R. Maxwell J.
Released: February 14, 2024
[^1]: The s. 95 offence is a secondary designated offence under the Code. I have weighed Mr. Webster’s privacy interests against the public interest in maintaining a sample of DNA in the databank. I am satisfied that the order is warranted in the circumstances of this case.