COURT FILE NO.: 22-R15544 DATE: 2025/02/19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: His Majesty the King v. Patrick King BEFORE: Justice Charles T. Hackland COUNSEL: Moiz Karimjee and Emma Loignon-Giroux, Counsel for the Crown Natasha Calvinho, Counsel for the accused HEARD: February 19, 2025
Sentencing Decision
[ 1 ] The accused Patrick King has been convicted of the offences of mischief and counselling mischief, counselling obstructing of police, disobeying a court order and counselling to disobey a court order. These charges arose in the context of Mr. King’s participation in the Freedom Convoy which was a protest occupying downtown Ottawa for a 3 week period, from January 28 to February 20, 2022. The court’s reasons for these convictions may be found at R. v. Patrick King, 2024 ONSC 6458 .
[ 2 ] In terms of the mischief charges, Mr. King was found to have planned from before the arrival of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa and following his arrival, accompanied by hundreds of large trucks and other vehicles, to gridlock downtown Ottawa and to cause distress to residents, merchants and workers by continuous honking of truck horns, blocking streets and other disruptive activities and to prolong this occupation indefinitely until the groups’ political demands were addressed to their satisfaction by the government.
[ 3 ] The court also found Mr. King’s continuing online presence throughout the Freedom Convoy and his comments prior to arriving in Ottawa justified a finding that he was an organizer and a leader of a significant component of the convoy. He encouraged his followers to use their vehicles to blockade downtown streets and counselled them to “hold the line” in the face of efforts by the police to encourage protesters to leave the city. The court found he was “a leader, an organizer, and on-line influencer” of the Freedom Convoy and in that capacity aided and abetted and was part of a joint purpose of Freedom Convoy participants to commit mischief.
[ 4 ] In addition, the court found King counselled his on-line followers to continue to honk their horns in contravention of a civil injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice and encouraged his followers to resist certain police actions and to continue to “hold the line”.
[ 5 ] Mr. King made it clear in his online remarks that the Freedom Convoy’s mission was to pressure the government to abandon vaccine mandates and to achieve this result by occupying downtown Ottawa and continuing the occupation until the government acted on their demands. The occupation of downtown Ottawa was not simply a result of the Freedom Convoy growing out of control after its arrival. It was, at least in part, a result of King’s and other convoy organizer’s admonitions to protesters, before they set out for Ottawa in their vehicles to, in King’s words, encircle and “peacefully bear hug” the city. In other words, in relation to the mischief which ensued, there was an element of planning and premeditation on Mr. King’s part.
Sentence Positions of the Crown and Defence
[ 6 ] The Crown’s position is these convictions warrant the maximum 10 years imprisonment, due to the mischief being of a uniquely serious nature, less a total period of about 9 months to be credited to Mr. King for pre-sentence custody and strict pre-trial bail conditions. The 10 years for mischief is actually reduced to 9 years plus one year consecutive for counselling breach of a court order, once one applies the totality principle, according to the Crown. The defence position is that a proper sentence, given the pre-sentence credit of about 9 months, would be time served, plus 3 years probation or a conditional sentence order, plus probation. Clearly the positions of the Crown and defence are remarkably far apart.
Sentencing Principles
[ 7 ] The objectives of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code , which are, in relevant part:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
[ 8 ] A sentence must be proportionate. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states:
Fundamental principle
718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[ 9 ] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code requires a sentence to be increased on account of aggravating factors:
Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
[ 10 ] Notably, the circumstances of this case do not implicate these aggravating factors, nor any of the others mentioned in section 718.2 (such as spousal violence, abuse of minors, and breach of trust in relation to the victim). This should be kept in mind when assessing the Crown’s submission that this is the “worst case of mischief” and thus deserving of a uniquely severe punishment.
[ 11 ] The parties accept that the court, in passing sentence, must focus on these objectives as well as the principal of proportionality and the principal of totality.
[ 12 ] The Crown acknowledged in argument and in oral submissions that there is no precedent for the length of sentence (ten years) the Crown seeks on the counts of mischief and counselling mischief. However, the Crown explains in its memoranda:
The brief explanation for seeking a significant sentence is that Parliament has provided for a maximum sentence for mischief of 10 years. On a sliding scale of seriousness and moral culpability, this is the worst case of mischief even though the maximum sentence does not require the worst offence or offender. The counselling to disobey court order and obstruction of police was also done in unprecedented circumstances of a municipal, provincial, and national emergency. For the first time in Canadian history, the downtown core of the nation’s capital was occupied and gridlocked for three weeks, causing significant suffering to its residents, until the occupation was forcefully cleared by a multijurisdictional police force. The cost to the city of Ottawa, including police was over $30 million. Pat King was an organizer and leader of this occupation who also counselled obstruction of police and disobeying a court order. The purpose of this occupation was to force a change in government policy by non-democratic means. The impact on the community, including loss of confidence in the rule of law, was significant.
[ 13 ] The Crown suggests there is a very strong need for general deterrence to prevent crimes as a method for achieving political change, particularly in the nation’s capital. It is suggested that the sentence “must serve as a powerful deterrent… those that attempt to disrupt democratic processes and undermine societal order through unlawful actions will face consequences that ensure such behaviour is not repeated”. The Crown suggests the circumstances of this case were unique: “there is no sentence precedent for a similar offender who committed the offensives in similar circumstances… there has never been an occupation of downtown Ottawa, or any city in Canada, for three weeks, where the organizer and leader of the mischief has also counselled disobeying a court order and obstruction of police”.
[ 14 ] The Crown’s position here seems to be not only is general deterrence the governing sentencing objective in the circumstances of this case but also that it is not necessary or possible to seek parity with sentence ranges reflected in other cases involving politically motivated demonstrations in which mischief was committed.
[ 15 ] In the court’s view the circumstances of this case and Mr. King’s actions in counselling and committing mischief do indeed call out for a sentence emphasizing the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation. However, in determining a fit and just sentence the court must also respect the fundamental objective of proportionality by considering the sentencing ranges applied in comparable cases. And indeed there are comparable cases, as I will discuss. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code requires that, “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.”
Relevant Sentence Decisions
[ 16 ] The Freedom Convoy gave rise to several cases in which Convoy protesters were convicted of mischief. In many of the videos in evidence in the present case Mr. King is seen in the company of his friend George Billings who is driving the truck in which he and King are riding around Ottawa. They can be observed keeping up a dialogue designed to encourage their on-line listeners and to report on ongoing events concerning the Freedom Convoy and at one point live-streaming their ‘slow role’ to the Ottawa Airport. Mr. Billings worked very closely with King throughout the 3-week protest so far as can be observed in the various videos. Billings was charged for his role in the Freedom Convoy and plead guilty to one count of counselling mischief contrary to s. 464 (a) of the Criminal Code . He received an agreed upon sentence of 6 months time served (reflecting pre-sentence custody) followed by 6 months probation requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behavior. No doubt Billing’s sentence was mitigated by his guilty plea.
[ 17 ] Of greater assistance are the ‘Coutts Border Crossing blockade’ cases, which are very recent and highly relevant, in the court’s view. In R. v. Van Huigenbos and Janzen, 2025 ABKB 14 (Yamauchi J.) the accused were convicted of mischief by a jury for their participation in the Coutts border crossing blockade. They were convicted of aiding or abetting mischief for activities supporting the demonstrators. This was a highway blockade at a border crossing at the U.S.-Canadian border lasting two weeks. The court found the blockade to be potentially dangerous and had a serious impact on the community and caused considerable inconvenience. The 2 accused aided the principal offenders in various ways and Van Huigenbos eventually assumed a leadership role in the blockade. The court sentenced Huigenbos to 4 months imprisonment. Mr. Janzen received a conditional sentence of 90 days duration.
[ 18 ] In Huigenbos at para. 23 the court made these comments, which are equally relevant to the present case:
Clearly, the Protesters, and the offenders felt they had a legitimate cause they were pursuing. That cause is not the issue. It is the method by which they chose to promote their cause that was illegal. They had legal means to express their concern with the COVID-19 mandates and those who imposed them on Canadians. They could undertake peaceful protests that did not obstruct the lawful use, enjoyment, and operation of Highway 4. They could invite meaningful discussion with their elected representatives, which they appeared to have started. They could attempt to boycott businesses that supported the governmental policies. Instead, they undertook the vigilante approach of taking over a portion of Highway 4 and shutting it down until their demands were met. This approach was exhibited by their overt criticism of government, such as Mr. Van Huigenbos’s speech in which he said the Prime Minister could not even cross the border.
[ 19 ] In R. v. Pawlowski , ABCJ (unreported, September 18, 2023), Krinke J. sentenced Mr. Pawlowski to 60 days incarceration for attending at a saloon near the Coutts border crossing blockade to give a short speech on one occasion to encourage the protesters to continue with the protest and inviting others to join in. Pawlowski did not personally participate in the blockade. Krinke J. found that Pawlowski committed mischief by inciting the protesters to continue the blockade, noting at p.19, “the significant number of people affected by the blockade, and the time period over which the blockade continued, extended the potential harm and therefore the gravity of the offence”. Justice Krinke also observed:
... [W]hen legitimate protest crosses the line into illegal activities, it becomes an attack on the essential values of democracy; that is no one is above the law and everyone must abide by the law. This attack on essential values of democracy increases the gravity of the offence.
[ 20 ] An appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal was dismissed, see R. v Pawlowski, 2024 ABCA 342 . Slatter J.A. observed (at para. 107):
While the appellant is correct that peaceful, lawful and nonviolent communication is entitled to protection, blockading a highway is an inherently aggressive and potentially violent form of conduct, designed to intimidate and impede the movement of third parties. Canadian political convention, the common law, and the Charter protect peaceful protests. However, mass obstruction of public highways is not a form of peaceful protest. The fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly do not encompass obstructing public highways or inciting anyone else to do so.
[ 21 ] Another Coutts border crossing blockade case is R. v. Olienick and Carbert (September 9, 2024) ABKB (Labrenz J.) Both offenders were sentenced to 6 months incarceration. This sentence was concurrent with 6 year sentences on serious weapons charges. On the mischief charges Olienick was a principal offender, blocking the highway with his dump truck. Carbert was found to have exercised a leadership role. This was a blockade lasting 2 weeks and involving a large number of protesters. The court recognized Highway 4 as a vital economic corridor between Canada and the United States and said the protestors “held the highway hostage”. Justice Labrenz J. observed at pages 34-35:
As the case authorities clearly demonstrate, the Court must take into account ... any actions that threaten the Rule of Law, and that the response to actions that threaten the Rule of Law is one of a sentence that properly reflects principles of denunciation and deterrence. A deterrent sentence is one that not only ... deters the offenders before the court, but more importantly signals to everybody now and in the future that should they decide to block critical infrastructure in the name of their perceived public greater good then meaningful penal consequences will follow. As I have stated, section 718 itself of the Criminal Code indicates that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society, promote respect for the law, and the maintenance of a peaceful and safe society. Any sentence I impose must reflect that purpose.
What occurred here during the 2-week blockade at Coutts was an attack on the Rule of Law by a group of protesters who decided that they did not need to follow the law, and they did not need to use democratic processes to [effect] change. It should be obvious the residents of Canada do not always hold the same values including the values underlying a person’s belief in political matters, social matters, or other legal matters. It is not difficult for that reason to envision the anarchy that would follow should every person who feels disaffected or disgruntled with the law decide that their cause merits interference with public infrastructure in an attempt to extract political change. It should be obvious I suggest that every civilized and democratic society cannot function in that manner.
Mr. Olienick and Mr. Carbert knew that they were actively participating in something that was illegal, and they knew what they were encouraging was a threat to that Rule of Law. They knew what they were doing was illegal. ... For this reason, given the magnitude of this particular offence, in my view the Crown’s submission of 6 months incarceration concurrent is not inappropriate and I would impose it.
[ 22 ] In R. v. Soranno , 2022 BCSC 1795 , groups of individuals were protesting the treatment of pigs in an animal rights context. They entered pig farmers’ property uninvited, along with media, and occupied the barns in which pigs were located, over the objections of the farmers. The accused were convicted of mischief and sentenced to a brief jail sentence and probation. However, the Court of Appeal substituted a 120 day conditional sentence order. The trial judge Verhoeven J. made the following observations (at paras. 5-7) in terms applicable to the present case:
Canadians, we are fortunate to live in a democracy. Freedom of belief and expression is a fundamental freedom under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The offenders and every other citizen have the right to protest, to express themselves, and to attempt to influence others by any lawful means, within the democratic process. They have no right to break the law. There is no shortage of people who believe that their cause is just, who are impatient with democratic processes, and who believe that higher moral values should entitle them to disobey the law in furtherance of their goals. However, as s. 718 of the Code states, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Allowing citizens to break the law as they see fit in order to achieve political objectives is anathema to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.
[ 23 ] In R. v. Deboer , 2023 ONCJ 510 , Deboer was involved in an effort to shut down the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor to protest vaccine mandates. Mid-trial, he pleaded guilty to mischief. Deboer’s involvement consisted of carrying a large sign that read, “Police stand down.” The disruption of commercial traffic caused by the actions of those involved in the blockade was found by the court to have been significant. The trial judge declined to accept a joint submission for 12-month conditional discharge and instead suspended the imposition of a sentence and placed Deboer on probation for 12 months. On appeal, the Ontario Superior Court imposed the jointly submitted 12-month conditional discharge.
Presentence Report and Criminal Record
[ 24 ] The court received a helpful pre-sentence report concerning Mr. King. Mr. King is 47 years of age. He grew up in a small city in Northern Ontario. His father died when he was six and he had a difficult upbringing which he nevertheless views in a positive light. He had several convictions in Youth Court for minor property crimes. As an adult he had 3 convictions in the 1996-1999 time period for possession of stolen property under $5,000. So, for the last 25 years he has had no criminal convictions and has maintained a continuous work record. He suffered a leg amputation below the knee some years after experiencing a serious fall at a construction work site. He has a prosthesis and experiences significant chronic pain. He has his grade 12 and obtained a diploma in workplace health and safety, a field in which he has been employed. He is divorced and maintains a good relationship with his two sons. He has a relationship with a partner in Montreal and hopes to relocate there to be with her following the conclusion of his current legal proceedings. The probation officer felt Mr. King accepted minimal responsibility for his involvement in the Freedom Convoy protest, commenting, “while he recognized some of the harm caused, he projected blame onto city officials, local police and other organizers”. The probation officer recommended Mr. King seek psychological counselling in a community setting and made a number of other useful suggestions for inclusion in a Community Supervision Order.
Mr. King’s Statement to the Court
[ 25 ] At the conclusion of sentencing submissions, Mr. King asked to address the court. He delivered an emotional and in the court’s view, a sincere apology to the people of Ottawa for the harm they were subjected to in the Freedom convoy protest. He went on recount the extremely challenging time he endured in the 161 days he spent in the Regional Detention Centre, during Covid, including dealing with a serious infection in his leg, frequent lockdowns, a period in isolation, being bunked with a violent criminal, harassment and mockery from other prisoners, and isolation from his family, particularly his sons. His funds have been frozen, he is in strained financial circumstances with an inability to pay his legal fees. He closed his remarks by observing he would “absolutely not ever do this again… I don’t want anything to do with protesting…I don’t want anything to do with politics”. He added “I want to go hide out and never see another protest again…I’m done…I’m absolutely done… and “you will never see me in the city of Ottawa other than for court.”
Credit for Pre-Sentence Custody and Bail Terms
[ 26 ] There would appear to be no dispute that Mr. King spent a total of 161 days incarcerated in the Ottawa Carleton Regional Detention Centre. It is the practice of this court to calculate the credit for pre-sentence custody at the rate of 1.5 times the days actually served in institutional custody. This results in Mr. King being credited with 8 months time served. The parties have also been able to agree there should be an additional credit of 30 days to recognize Mr. King has been on restrictive bail terms since his initial release on bail. In the circumstances of this case, the court is of the view that Mr. King will receive a total credit of 8 months for pre-sentence custody plus an additional month to reflect his restrictive bail terms. In other words, a total of 9 months credit.
[ 27 ] This court is of the view a fit and just sentence for Mr. King must send a message of denunciation for his conduct and as a warning to others who seek to force their views on government by pressuring downtown residents and workers. At the same time adherence to the fundamental principle of proportionality must be respected. An accused must receive a sentence that can be seen to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. As noted, I respectfully disagree with the Crowns contention that there are no appropriate comparators for the criminal conduct in the present case. I do not see this as “the worst case of mischief” on a scale of seriousness and moral culpability, as the Crown has submitted, or that there is any other aspect of the conduct of Mr. King that warrants a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Summary
[ 28 ] In summary, the Freedom Convoy cases, including the highly relevant Coutts border blockade cases all speak of harm to the rule of law from political protests in which serious mischief is occasioned for the purpose of forcing protesters’ political views on government. The right to demonstrate and to protest are democratic values protected by the Charter but when the conduct crosses the line into criminal mischief a sentence reflecting the principles of denunciation and deterrence is warranted. As noted previously, the Freedom Convoy protests in the Coutts border crossing blockade cases resulted in sentences of three and four months to the perpetrators in R. v. Huigenbos and six months in R. v. Olienick and Carbert . The principles of proportionality required by s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code invite reference to those cases.
[ 29 ] I recognize the circumstances of the current case are markedly more serious than those of the Alberta cases arising from the Coutts border protests. In the present case the protests were longer lasting and broader in scope. The Freedom Convoy protesters in the present case blockaded downtown Ottawa for a period of three weeks, involved thousands of protesters and hundreds of commercial trucks which targeted the civilian population living and working in the downtown area. It went well beyond blocking streets and included incessant honking of truck horns intended to harass the public and disrupt businesses. This had a particularly insidious effect on vulnerable parts of the population – people with disabilities, children, the elderly, those in shelters and dependent on food banks.
[ 30 ] Mr. King bears a significant element of responsibility for this turmoil as he was an organizer and one of the leadership group. His personal involvement is an important measure of his culpability. However, there are mitigating aspects to his personal involvement and an absence of aggravating features which also should not go unnoticed. I note these factors in particular:
• King personally organized and led the “slow roll” to the Ottawa Airport and then onto highway 417. This tied up traffic for several hours but, on the evidence tendered in this trial, the “slow roll” was a temporary nuisance not amounting to a major event;
• He belatedly dropped his “hold the line” rhetoric in favour of an admonition to his online listeners to drive away from the city and regroup at a rural location west of the city, advice which was apparently ignored by other protesters. This was an attempt to avoid confrontation with police that he knew was imminent;
• Apart from one man who joined the ‘slow roll’, none of the other Crown witnesses interacted at all with King and their evidence was therefore about the Freedom Convoy in general;
• Essentially no violence or property damage occurred over the 3 weeks of the protest and indeed King counselled against violence in very direct and blunt terms in his on-line broadcasts. This massive demonstration involving large commercial trucks and a diverse group of people, some with extreme political views, carried with it a significant risk of violence and property damage, neither of which occurred. King advocated forcefully against such conduct and can be credited as a positive influencer, in significant respects;
• Apart from a group of truckers and their supporters from Alberta, King was not particularly well-known to protesters in Ottawa. Defence witness Daniel Bulford identified certain individual operational leaders of the convoy, whom he described as “the face of the protest” and King was not among them. Indeed, no Crown witnesses, not even members of the PLT team, had any substantial interactions personally with King during the blockade;
• In short, King was on the periphery of the leadership group, once it arrived in Ottawa and his on-line messaging as the protest continued contained significant ‘avoid violence and obey the law’ messaging which may have helped to mitigate or contain what could have been a far worse situation;
• King’s period of actual incarceration involved frequent lock downs, a serious infection issue with his prosthesis and intimidation by other inmates; and,
• Community impact statements suggest protestors frightened and intimated residents of a woman’s shelter and workers in a food bank. There is no evidence that Mr. King had any knowledge of these events.
[ 31 ] Respectfully, the court does not accept the Crown’s characterization of Mr. King’s role in the Freedom Convoy as ‘the worst case of mischief on a sliding scale of seriousness and moral culpability’. In the court’s opinion there is a social harm to unduly elevating the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence in the context of political protests, to result in punitive sentences at the top of the sentencing range. The risk is that an overly severe sentence of imprisonment in the context of legitimate constitutionally protected activity can have the effect of creating a chill or a fear of participation in political expression such as demonstrations or protests, for fear that some persons may cross the line into conduct constituting mischief with resultant severe sentences for all involved. The Freedom Convoy protest was about expressing opposition held by some to perceived government overreach in the form of Covid 19 mandates and other vaccine issues, which continue to be matters of legitimate public discourse and shifting opinions and policy approaches. The Freedom Convoy was not an attack aimed at, for example, promoting violence or intimidation of racial or religious minorities or other vulnerable groups. Rather, the Freedom Convoy began as a lawful constitutionally protected form of protest that unfortunately grew out of control and was allowed to go on and on and morphed into criminal activity (in the form of mischief and related offences). But in the court’s opinion neither the Freedom Convoy nor Mr. King’s role in it constituted the worst case of mischief.
Sentence
[ 32 ] Mr. King, as noted, you will receive 9 months of presentence credit. That will be marked against count #1 (counseling mischief). In my view, a further 3-month conditional sentence is required in addition to the 9 month presentence credit to adequately address the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. I am satisfied that a conditional sentence will not endanger the safety of the community and can satisfactorily address the principles of sentencing, particularly given the presentence custody that you’ve served and the conditions in which you served it. A concurrent 3-month conditional sentence will be imposed on the remaining counts. Concurrent sentences are in my view appropriate given that the offences all arose from the same ongoing transaction and have a close factual and legal nexus. Your sentence totals 12 months, 9 months represents the presentence credit I have just explained and the additional 3 month conditional sentence, the terms of which I will now explain.
[ 33 ] The terms of your conditional sentence are the following:
a. You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
b. You will appear before the court when required to do so by the Court;
c. You will report to a supervisor within two days after the making of this conditional sentence order, and thereafter as required by your supervisor and in the manner directed by your supervisor.
i. I will invite further submissions from counsel as to Mr. King’s anticipated city and province of residence.
d. Notify the court or your supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation;
e. You are not to associate with or communicate directly or indirectly with the following individuals: Tamara Lich, Christopher Barber, Tyson Billings, Daniel Bulford, Owen Swiderski, Benjamin Dichter, James Bauder, Tom Marazzo, and Brian Carr;
f. You are not to be in the City of Ottawa except for any required court appearance or to consult with a lawyer representing you in any ongoing legal matters;
g. You are not to participate in any public demonstration involving 20 or more persons;
h. For the duration of your conditional sentence order, you shall remain in your residence or its grounds 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except:
i. On Monday afternoon between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to obtain the necessities of life;
ii. While traveling directly to and from, or while at work, provided your work schedule is provided in advance to your supervisor;
iii. For any medical emergency involving you or an immediate member of your family;
iv. While reporting to your CS supervisor in person provided you travel directly to and from those appointments.
v. While completing your required community service hours provided permission is granted by your conditional sentence supervisor in advance and a written copy of that permission is carried on your person at all times and provided to any peace officer who demands to see it.
vi. With the written approval of your CS supervisor provided you carry a copy of that written permission on your person and provide a copy to any peace officer who demands to see it.
i. You are to perform 100 hours of community service at a men’s shelter, food bank or elsewhere as approved by your CS supervisor. You are to provide proof in writing to your CS supervisor upon completion.
[ 34 ] Upon completion of this conditional sentence you will be subject to a 12 month period of probation, during which you will keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so by the court; and notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. I see no reasonable basis to order a weapons prohibition, nor will the court require you to provide a sample of your DNA.
[ 35 ] You will pay the applicable victim surcharge.
[ 36 ] That is the court’s sentence. I invite counsel to suggest any modifications to the conditional sentence which you consider appropriate.
Justice Charles T. Hackland Date: February 19, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: 22-R15544 DATE: 2025/02/19 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RE: His Majesty the King v. Patrick King COUNSEL: Moiz Karimjee and Emma Loignon-Giroux, Counsel for the Crown Natasha Calvinho, Counsel for the accused Sentencing decision Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released: February 19, 2025