Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-20-10000288-0000
Date: 2025-05-05
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Keron Alvarez

Appearances:
Erin Winocur, for the Crown
Allan Lobel, for Mr. Alvarez

Heard: April 11, 2023, February 21, 2025

Judge: R.F. Goldstein

Facts

[1] On New Year’s Eve 2019, David Shellnutt and his then girlfriend and now wife, Allison Woods, were at a bar on Queen Street West in Toronto. Not long after midnight on January 1, 2019, Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods were on the sidewalk near 657 Queen Street West. Two men in a car apparently directed comments in their direction. The Crown is not in a position to prove what was said, but whatever it was, it affected Mr. Shellnutt. As he later admitted, he probably did not react as well as he should have. Indeed he did not react as well as he should have. He took a bag of garbage from the street. He threw the bag of garbage towards the car. Two men got out of the car. One of them was Keron Alvarez. The other male remains unidentified. The unknown male struck Mr. Shellnutt in the face. Mr. Shellnutt went down to the ground immediately, striking his head on the concrete. Mr. Alvarez bent over and struck Mr. Shellnutt again while he lay on his back on the ground.

[2] The assault was caught on video from a nearby business. I will summarize the events, referencing the time stamp on the video (the date is January 1, 2019):

• 00:31:59: Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods come into view, walking along Queen Street West. They are walking away from the camera.
• 00:32:20: Something causes Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods to stop walking. Mr. Shellnutt turns around.
• 00:32:25: Mr. Shellnutt walks quickly back towards the camera and picks up a bag of garbage. The bag of garbage is on the street next to a City garbage receptacle.
• 00:32:28: Mr. Shellnutt moves out of the camera view but it is clear that he is throwing the bag of garbage at a car. He runs back towards Ms. Woods.
• 00:32:32: A man in black pants comes into the view of the camera, running towards Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods. That man is unidentified.
• 00:32:36: Mr. Alvarez, who is wearing blue jeans, comes into the view of the camera, also running towards Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods.
• 00:32:37: The unidentified man in black pants begins to push and shove Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Shellnutt pushes back but he is moving backwards. Mr. Alvarez joins in the fray immediately. Mr. Shellnutt continues to move backwards, towards the street and then the sidewalk.
• 00:32:46: The man in the black pants punches Mr. Shellnutt in the jaw with a closed right fist. Mr. Shellnutt collapses on the ground and strikes his head on the pavement.
• 00:32:48: Mr. Alvarez punches Mr. Shellnutt in the head while Mr. Shellnutt is lying on the ground. There is a small movement of Mr. Shellnutt’s feet.

[3] After the assault Mr. Shellnutt lay on the ground, unconscious. He did regain consciousness and was rushed to St. Joseph’s hospital. He lost consciousness again. From St. Joseph’s Hospital he was transferred to St. Michael’s Hospital, where he underwent surgery to resolve bleeding in his brain. He sustained multiple fractures to his jaw as well as a fractured skull. He has since recovered, but the recovery was long, slow, and painful.

Procedural History

[4] I will first deal with the procedural history of this matter to explain why it has taken so long to get to this point.

[5] The police were able to identify Mr. Alvarez as one of the perpetrators. He was arrested on February 1, 2019, a month after the assault. At the time he was on federal parole. He was serving a ten-year sentence for attempted murder with a firearm and other offences.

[6] The following is the relevant timeline:

• January 22, 2018: Federal correctional authorities release Mr. Alvarez to a halfway house.
• July 22, 2018: Federal correctional authorities release Mr. Alvarez into the community on statutory release.
• January 1, 2019: Mr. Alvarez and the unidentified man assault Mr. Shellnutt.
• February 1, 2019: The police arrest Mr. Alvarez. His parole is revoked.
• March 14, 2021: Mr. Alvarez’s warrant expiry date.
• March 15, 2021 to April 15, 2021: Mr. Alvarez serves a 30-day sentence for a weapons offence. It is unclear to me when this offence occurred.
• June 24, 2021: Mr. Alvarez is released on bail.
• April 11, 2023: Mr. Alvarez pleads guilty to one count of aggravated assault.

[7] It has taken two years to get to the point of sentencing, and it has been six years since the offence. This is an extraordinary length of time to get from event to sentencing, especially since the police arrested and identified Mr. Alvarez within a month of the incident. Some explanation is required.

[8] I do not have a detailed timeline of the court proceedings, but I note that the plea was taken well after the Jordan timeline. Much of that time was during Covid, when jury trials were suspended in this court.

[9] When the plea was entered in April 2023, Mr. Lobel asked that an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (“EPSR”), sometimes referred to as a “Morris” Report (see: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680) be ordered. EPSRs are funded separately from regular pre-sentence reports. On June 27, 2023, Mr. Lobel advised the Court that Legal Aid had approved Mr. Alvarez for an EPSR. Unfortunately, it was not until March 2024 – almost a year after the plea – before a social worker was assigned to write the report.

[10] I pause to note that my understanding is that the Sentencing and Parole Project prepares these reports. My understanding of how the Project works and is funded comes from having heard submissions and evidence from different lawyers and representatives in several cases.

[11] Obviously, the Project was prioritizing people in custody, which is understandable.

[12] The Project is a private organization that receives government funding, like some of the NGOs that work in our city such as the United Way or the Fred Victor Centre. The Project started off as a pilot project with a limited budget and slim resources. As I understand it, again from several different cases, the resources have increased. I also understand that the Project has been successful in the sense that it is swamped with these requests. My experience as a judge is that the reports are useful in that they go into a significant level of detail and provide a broader social context in which the individual offender is situated.

[13] Unfortunately, much of the utility of the reports is lost when it takes a year to even have a worker assigned to write them. When I say this, it should not be taken as a criticism of the Project – it is a reflection of the resources available to them.

[14] Picking up the thread again, once the EPSR was completed, a sentencing date of July 25, 2024, was set. Unfortunately, on that day Ms. Winocur had a family emergency. This was a complicated case, requiring a very experienced Crown such as Ms. Winocur, and no counsel could easily step into Ms. Winocur’s shoes and conduct the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the sentencing was adjourned to November 26, 2024.

[15] Mr. Lobel retained Dr. David Ramsay to provide an opinion regarding causation. Dr. Ramsay is a forensic pathologist with a specialty in neuropathology. He is well known in these courts and has testified in the Superior Court – including before me – many times. Mr. Lobel had booked November 26, 2024, with Dr. Ramsay. Unfortunately, Dr. Ramsay was experiencing significant health issues and could not testify on that day. As a result, Dr. Michael Shkrum was retained to testify, based on Dr. Ramsay’s report. Unfortunately, Dr. Shkrum was not available until February 21, 2025.

[16] The sentencing hearing proceeded on that day. Although I was aware that there was a certain imperative to pronounce sentence as soon as possible, my schedule made it impossible for me to devote the time required to this matter for some time. As well, there were the usual difficulties coordinating dates with both counsel, although it was mostly my schedule that was the issue. That is why I have been unable to deal with sentencing until today, April 16, 2025.

[17] I turn next to the circumstances of the two main individuals in this proceeding: the impact on Mr. Shellnutt, and the circumstances of Mr. Alvarez.

Impact on the Victim

[18] Mr. Shellnutt provided a victim impact statement. He also testified.

[19] Mr. Shellnutt is a lawyer. There were two significant impacts on him: one professional, and the other physical and mental, which I will consider together.

[20] Mr. Shellnutt detailed the medical effects in his victim impact statement. He was not awake for much of what he described, but there is no serious contest about it. He had a broken jaw and a significant brain bleed as a result of a fractured skull. He was taken first to St. Joseph’s Hospital, and then when the doctors realized his head injury was much more significant, he was rushed to St. Michael’s hospital for emergency brain surgery. He was in a coma and had multiple seizures on the operating table. The OHIP records indicate that he was “unlikely to survive”. He had a second major surgery to repair his jaw one day later. Throughout this period, he was intubated and remained in a coma for about six days. He has permanent titanium jaw plates. He remained non-ambulatory, unable to feed himself, and unable to control his bodily and waste functions. Eventually he was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital where he remained. He experienced impaired motor control, impaired speech, and cognitive deficits. He underwent physiotherapy, speech therapy, and follow-up surgery. It took about a year for the pain to resolve itself. He is still in recovery as a screw remains in his jaw, and his face remains numb.

[21] Prior to the injury Mr. Shellnutt was very active. He worked out regularly, rode his bike to work in winter and summer, had no pre-existing injuries, and was very fit. It has taken him a great deal of time to recover. Mentally, Mr. Shellnutt experienced a depressed mood and required sleeping medication. He has required trauma counselling. He has experienced and remains traumatized.

[22] In cross-examination by Mr. Lobel, Mr. Shellnutt agreed that he was hit by a car while riding his bike on May 14 or 15, 2019 about five months after the assault. He broke his wrist and elbow in the biking incident. He has been actively biking since then.

[23] The other impact on Mr. Shellnutt was professional. At the time of the offence, he was trying to build up a solo personal injury practice. After the assault, he returned to work part-time on March 20, 2019. He returned to work full-time, on May 13, 2019, about five months after the assault. The injury obviously affected his ability to earn an income during that period. It interrupted the time he was putting in to building up his practice. He agreed in cross-examination that he had recouped about $80,000 from a GoFundMe campaign.

[24] I find that the impact on Mr. Shellnutt was quite significant.

[25] I turn next to Mr. Alvarez.

Mr. Alvarez’s Background

[26] This summary is taken from the EPSR, and from some of the letters of support.

[27] Mr. Alvarez is 41 years old. He was born in Trinidad and Tobago. He has two sons, aged 5 and 22. He is in a relationship with Denise Gautreau and helps care for her children from a previous relationship. His mother died from cancer in 2020. When he was very young, she immigrated to Canada. His father’s identity is unknown, and Mr. Alvarez has never had contact with him. He was left in Trinidad with his maternal uncle and grandfather. He was raised by his uncle Clive, a police officer, and his uncle’s wife Beverly, a baker. He had a good relationship with his cousin Bevon, the child of Clive and Beverly. Bevon is one year younger than Mr. Alvarez. He had limited contact with his mother while he was raised in Trinidad. His uncle’s house was strict but structured and all their needs were met. Mr. Alvarez moved to Canada to be with his mother when he was 11 years old. He was excited to finally be reunited with his mother. Unfortunately, as his life has transpired it seems he may have been better off in the structured and loving home he had in Trinidad. Certainly Bevon, his Uncle Clive, and his Aunt Beverly think so.

[28] Mr. Alvarez’s upbringing in Canada was not ideal. His mother and his stepfather worked hard but provided little structure or discipline to Mr. Alvarez. He was often required to babysit his younger sister, Shakila. He often felt alienated and that his mother and stepfather cared more for his sister. When he was 14, his mother kicked his stepfather out of the house due to a substance abuse addiction, although he did occasionally visit. He reported that his stepfather physically disciplined him, causing him to leave the house. He lived with friends who supported themselves by selling drugs. He took up the same job. He became involved with the criminal justice system.

[29] He became involved with people who were a very bad influence. His relatives believe that there was a lack of structure and abuse in the home.

[30] Ms. Richards, who wrote the EPSR, noted that research shows that family re-unification can be problematic, as parents and children grow distant from each other. His reported experiences of anti-Black racism also conform to the research.

[31] His cousin Bevon reported that his own father was upset that Mr. Alvarez had become involved with the youth criminal justice system. His father always regretted letting Mr. Alvarez leave Trinidad, where he had nurturing and care from a strict but loving uncle and a maternal aunt.

[32] The one thing that Mr. Alvarez did not experience, either in Canada or Trinidad, was financial hardship. They lived in a decent building in Toronto, with other Caribbean families and a sense of community.

[33] However, when Mr. Alvarez came to Canada, he was placed in a school with very few Black students and teachers, which was different from his experience in Trinidad. He reports being called racist epithets by white students, which the teachers did not take seriously. His cousin Malena, who was in the same grades 7 and 8 classes, confirmed that Mr. Alvarez generally stayed out of trouble and got along with classmates, although she believes that he was affected by anti-Black racism. Mr. Alvarez was sent home for an incident in Grade 10, and never went back to school.

[34] Mr. Alvarez had a job as a younger person at Wendy’s but quickly left and lived, as he put it, by “hustling”. In other words, he lived a criminal lifestyle. After his previous period of incarceration, he found work with a junk removal service. He has been employed since April 2023 as a painter with WOW 1 Day Painting. His supervisor at 1-800-GotJunk? wrote a letter of support indicating that Mr. Alvarez had been an excellent, reliable employee when he worked for that company.

[35] Mr. Alvarez disclosed the following about the assault to Ms. Richards:

Mr. Alvarez disclosed that he was not even friends with the passenger, but jumped in to assist him in the altercation. He explained that his involvement occurred out of an instinct to help, and was also rooted in his experience of navigating both life on the streets and incarceration. Mr. Alvarez explained that those environments often require an upfront and aggressive approach, and in that moment when he saw the passenger fighting the victim, he felt compelled to assist.

Mr. Alvarez regretted his actions, particularly when he saw the media reports about the victim being hospitalized and fighting for his life. He prayed for his recovery at that time and expressed that he had not left his home with the intention of harming anyone. Mr. Alvarez had not considered the risk of consequences until after the fact, at which point he realized that he had made a mistake.

[36] I do not accept this explanation. Mr. Alvarez did not get out of the car to help when he saw the passenger fighting the victim. He got out of the car and was with the passenger when the passenger struck the victim. He was seconds behind the unidentified man. There was no fight.

[37] It is entirely untrue that his experience of navigating life on the streets required an aggressive approach this time – he and the unidentified man were in a car heading in the opposite direction from Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Shellnutt posed absolutely no threat and that would have been obvious to Mr. Alvarez. Moreover, it is also entirely untrue that Mr. Alvarez was simply helping his acquaintance get out of a jam. He was an equal aggressor in confronting Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Alvarez did not simply make a mistake. If that were the case, he would not have gratuitously punched Mr. Shellnutt while he was down and incapacitated. Regrettably, this comment shows a certain lack of insight.

[38] Mr. Alvarez’s cousin Marlena believes that his actions were inconsistent with his character. Respectfully, based on his criminal record I would say that Mr. Alvarez’s actions at that time were entirely consistent with his character.

[39] The question now is whether he has reformed and can continue to reform.

[40] Mr. Alvarez has taken steps towards rehabilitation. Several letters dated from July 2024 (when it was anticipated that sentencing would occur shortly after) were filed. In custody, Mr. Alvarez participated in The Forgiveness Project, which aims to work on the accountability and self-reflection of inmates. He also completed anger management programming from the Ministry. Tara Muldoon, the founder of the Forgiveness Project, wrote letters indicating that Mr. Alvarez has made real progress since his release from custody.

[41] Taryn Anderson, one of his sureties, wrote letters in support of his application to loosen his bail restrictions in order to work, see his family, and attend counselling. For sentencing she wrote a letter indicating that he is employed and doing well in the community. His cousin Justin Brandon, who has also been a surety, also wrote a letter of support to much the same effect.

[42] His friend Brian Killen wrote a letter of support indicating that Mr. Alvarez has indeed made progress, and understands that as he is getting older, he needs to make better choices, such as caring for his children and keeping up a steady job.

[43] Denise Gautreau wrote a letter of support in February 2025. She recounted some of the hardship that Mr. Alvarez has encountered, including violence and abuse from his step-father, a cycle of incarceration, and an unstructured home life including parental abandonment. As of June 2025, Ms. Gautreau will have been in a relationship with Mr. Alvarez for four years. He has worked hard and been a father-figure to Ms. Gautreau’s children. Ms. Gautreau understands that Mr. Alvarez has committed a serious crime but also believes that he has changed for the better and wants to continue on a better path. Jareden Bell, Javon Bell, and Daysean Bell, who I gather are Ms. Gautreau’s children, all wrote letters indicating how important Mr. Alvarez has become to them and their family, how he has helped them, and how he has become like a stepfather to them.

[44] Teisha Mitchell is the mother of Mr. Alvarez’s children. She also wrote a letter, imploring the Court not to incarcerate Mr. Alvarez. She states that Mr. Alvarez was absent from their son’s life for his first three years but has since built an amazing relationship with him. She is concerned that if Mr. Alvarez is incarcerated, her son will suffer significantly given the relationship that they have built.

[45] Mr. Alvarez told Ms. Richards that he is committed to living a life free of crime. He also says he wants to break the cycle that has kept him in and out of prison his whole life. He has established a track record; he has been on bail and has not re-offended for the past four years. I hope, given Mr. Alvarez’s age, that he may have aged out of serious criminality. Based on the forward progress he has shown I accept that he is sincere that he wants to put that lifestyle behind him. Whether he can do so is up to him. He is fortunate to have the support of his family, who have indicated that they will be there to help him through what will undoubtedly continue to be a difficult time.

Mr. Alvarez’s Criminal Record

[46] At the time of the offence, Mr. Alvarez was on federal parole. Mr. Alvarez has a lengthy and serious criminal record. In 2003 he was convicted of one count of possession of a schedule I drug for the purpose of trafficking and fail to comply with a probation order. That year he was also convicted of obstruct police and mischief under $5000.00. In 2004 he was convicted of fail to comply with recognizance. In 2005 he was convicted of possession of a schedule I substance. In 2006 he was convicted of trafficking in a schedule I substance and possession of a schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking (for the second time). He received 6 months on each count, in light of 280 days pre-sentence custody. In 2009 he was convicted of obstruct police for the second time. In 2013 he was convicted of possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order, for which he received 1 day in custody in light of 60 days pre-sentence custody.

[47] On February 14, 2014, Mr. Alvarez was convicted of some very serious offences. He was convicted of the following offences:

• Attempted murder using a firearm, for which he received 85 months, with credit for 35 months of pre-sentence custody;
• Forcible confinement, for which he received 3 years concurrent;
• Assault with a weapon, for which he received 12 months concurrent;
• Two counts of pointing a firearm, for which he received 12 months concurrent;
• Three counts of possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, for which he received 12 months on each, concurrent;
• Two counts of uttering threats, for which he received 6 months concurrent; and,
• Assault, for which he received 6 months concurrent.

[48] The trial judge sentenced Mr. Alvarez to ten years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody. The circumstances of these offences were summarized in R. v. Alvarez, 2016 ONCA 259, paras. 2-3, 8-9, and 14 (I have provided excerpts for the purposes of this case):

… the trial judge found the appellant and his accomplice abducted the complainant at gunpoint as she walked home with her boyfriend. He accepted that the complainant was dragged through alleyways and held hostage in a nearby townhouse; that the appellant tried to shoot her but his gun did not go off; and that the appellant and his accomplice beat her up.

… the appellant did all this to try and start a fight with the complainant's boyfriend. And in fact, the appellant did exchange gunfire with the boyfriend.

… the complainant had met the appellant for the first time in her building a few months prior to the abduction, when he offered to help her with her groceries. In addition, the night before her abduction, the complainant witnessed "a brief but heated" argument between her boyfriend and the appellant while in a Pizza Pizza restaurant.

… the complainant had on numerous occasions observed the appellant close up and even engaged him in conversation. And, as she testified, she walked outside with the appellant and remained beside him in the alleyway before, during and after the gunfight.

… it is beyond dispute that the appellant's weapon was an operable firearm since he had fired it moments earlier at her boyfriend. Thus, it was entirely open to the trial judge to then find that when the appellant "pointed the gun at [the complainant’s] head and pulled the trigger", he expected to shoot her.

[49] In other words, it seems that Mr. Alvarez kidnapped, assaulted, and tried to kill the complainant because of a dispute with her boyfriend. Mr. Alvarez was on parole from these offences when he committed the offence against Mr. Shellnutt.

[50] What these offences, and the offence in this case show is that Mr. Alvarez is very capable of both planned and spontaneous acts of tremendous, life-threatening violence. And not just tremendous, life-threatening violence on its own, but violence over trivialities. I accept that he has made strides towards rehabilitation. I also accept that Mr. Alvarez wants to break the cycle of criminality and violence that has dominated most of his adult life. That said, I also find, after viewing that video and considering all the evidence, including Mr. Alvarez’s criminal record, that he is still capable of significant violence. I do believe he wants to reform and does not wish to engage in that kind of violence again, but it is something that he must work on.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[51] There are several obvious aggravating factors in this case. Mr. Alvarez was on parole for an exceptionally serious offence, attempted murder. In that case he appears to have tried to kill a woman because of a dispute of some kind with her boyfriend.

[52] His actions in committing this aggravated assault were shocking. He was part of a 2-on-1 attack on Mr. Shellnutt, as I will relate in the next section.

[53] Troublingly, Mr. Alvarez gratuitously punched a man who was on the ground and already incapacitated. Mr. Alvarez didn’t call 911 or seek to render aid. He punched him again. I find the nature of the offence to be highly aggravating.

[54] Mr. Alvarez’s criminal record is also aggravating. He has a lengthy and serious one, even aside from the attempted murder and related offences that netted him a 10-year sentence.

[55] There are also mitigating factors. Mr. Alvarez has remained on bail since June 2021 and has stayed out of trouble. He has been working as a painter. He has taken steps towards rehabilitation. He has been a father-figure to his girlfriend’s children and has worked on rebuilding his relationship with his son.

[56] As I mentioned earlier when dealing with Mr. Alvarez’s background, several letters of support were filed on his behalf. These letters, and the community support they illustrate, are mitigating.

[57] The most important mitigating factor, of course, is the guilty plea. Mr. Alvarez accepted responsibility for his actions, spared court resources, and did not require Mr. Shellnutt and Ms. Woods to testify.

[58] Mr. Alvarez wrote a letter of apology to the court. He expressed disappointment in himself and in his actions. He wrote that he apologized to the victim. In his letter he said he had nobody to blame but himself – which is certainly true. He said he had no intention of hurting anyone, which, based on his actions, was certainly not true at the moment, or he would not have administered that gratuitous punch. I do accept, however, that Mr. Alvarez does genuinely regret his actions. He said in his letter that he has had time to reflect on his actions, his poor decisions, and the way that it has affected his friends and family. He described some of the work he has done to try and change his ways, the programs he has taken, and the work he has been doing as a painter. He has tried to be a better person, both for himself and for his children and step-children.

[59] I accept his letter but it is tempered by his account in the EPSR. He said something different to Ms. Richards. He told her that he merely came into the altercation to assist his friend who was in the middle of a fight. As noted, I reject that explanation as being inconsistent with what is actually disclosed on the video. That unfortunately shows a certain lack of insight although it is not in any way an aggravating factor.

Positions Of Crown and Defence; Liability; Causation; Provocation

[60] The Crown’s position is that a four-year sentence is appropriate, as well as a DNA order and a s. 110 order for life. Ms. Winocur, for the Crown, argues that Mr. Alvarez is liable for all of the blows that struck Mr. Shellnutt. Ms. Winocur points out that for the purposes of liability Mr. Alvarez is either guilty as a co-principle or as a party to the offence perpetrated by the unknown passenger (although Mr. Alvarez likely knows who it is). For the purposes of sentencing, however, the real question Mr. Alvarez’s moral blameworthiness. She argues that it is high.

[61] Mr. Lobel’s position is that Mr. Alvarez should be sentenced to a conditional sentence.

Mr. Lobel agrees that this was a situation where Mr. Alvarez and the man in the black pants either formed a common intention to commit an offence or Mr. Alvarez was a party. Mr. Lobel argues, however, that Mr. Alvarez’s moral blameworthiness should not be assessed highly simply because the other man is not present. As well, the Crown cannot prove as an aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Alvarez caused the injuries to Mr. Shellnutt. Moreover, Mr. Alvarez should receive credit for harsh conditions of custody – he was in custody during the worst of the covid pandemic when his parole was revoked. That is an important mitigating factor. Mr. Alvarez has also taken great strides to rehabilitate himself. He has not re-offended since his release in June 2021. He is employed. He is re-building his relationships with his children and has forged a father-figure relationship with his girlfriend’s children. His rehabilitation is an important mitigating factor.

[62] I agree that Mr. Alvarez should not pay the price because the other man is not here. He must be assessed based on his own actions.

[63] I start with causation. Dr. David Ramsay was retained to provide an opinion about causation. Dr. Ramsay is a neuropathologist who has testified as an expert witness many times. He did not testify but there is no doubt that he would have been qualified to give opinion evidence. He reviewed the video, police reports, and medical records. According to the paramedics, Mr. Shellnutt was conscious when they arrived and walked to the ambulance. Mr. Shellnutt was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital. His condition then deteriorated and he became unconscious. Imaging revealed a large right parieto-occipital epidural haematoma and bilateral mandibular fractures – or, as I understand, in layman’s terms a brain bleed and a broken jaw. Mr. Shellnutt was transferred to St. Michael’s hospital where Dr. Spears, a neurosurgeon, performed a right temporoparietal craniotomy to drain the hematoma. Dr. Spears noted a fracture in the cranium – in other words, a fractured skull. This was associated with a bleeding branch of a meningeal artery, which was the source of the blood.

[64] Dr. Ramsay opined that the epidural bleeding was the result of a blow to the cranium, which caused a skull fracture and tears to the intercranial arteries. Dr. Ramsay’s opinion was that it was the punch thrown by the man in the dark pants (Mr. Alvarez’s companion) that impacted the right side of Mr. Shellnutt’s head that caused the fall, the impact on the sidewalk, and the resulting epidural hematoma. Dr. Ramsay could not say whether the punch by Mr. Alvarez resulted in a worsening of the cranial injuries. He could also not say which blows by which person caused Mr. Shellnutt’s fractured jaw.

[65] Unfortunately, Dr. Ramsay was unable to testify due to illness. As a result, Mr. Lobel retained Dr. Shkrum to comment and opine on Mr. Shellnutt’s injuries. Dr. Shkrum is a forensic pathologist who has also testified many times as an expert witness.

[66] Dr. Shkrum also provided a report (and commented on Dr. Ramsay’s report). Dr. Shkrum has testified as an expert witness many times and was also qualified to give opinion evidence. Dr. Shkrum also reviewed the video and the medical records. He noted that Mr. Shellnutt lost consciousness for about 2 or 2 ½ minutes after landing on the ground. He was able to talk to the paramedics and was “responsive” according to the Glasgow Coma Scale. His condition deteriorated when he got to St. Joseph’s. He became completely non-responsive. Imaging showed a large right parietal-occipital epidural hemorrhage with compression of the brain and a mid-line shift. He was transferred to St. Michael’s hospital where he underwent a right parieto-occipital craniotomy. The hematoma was evacuated. Dr. Spears, the neurosurgeon, observed that a small meningeal branch seemed to cause the skull fracture. Dr. Shkrum explained in his report that an epidural hematoma is caused by a torn artery or vein along the inner surface of the skull. A mass of blood forms between the skull and the underlying dura. The neurosurgeon wrote in his report that the skull fracture was the cause of the arterial tear.

[67] Dr. Shkrum had a polite disagreement with Dr. Ramsay in his report. He noted that Dr. Ramsay said that the right side of Mr. Shellnutt’s head struck the sidewalk. Dr. Shkrum’s review of the video shows that the back of Mr. Shellnutt’s head struck the sidewalk. I have reviewed the video several times. I agree with Dr. Shkrum. In any event, Dr. Shkrum indicated that whether the blood vessel was torn by a fracture that either radiated to the right parietal bone from the occipital bone or was simply centred in the right parietal bone could be clarified by Dr. Spears, the neurosurgeon.

[68] Dr. Shkrum opined that the deterioration in Mr. Shellnutt’s condition was typical for an injury of that type. Without neurosurgical intervention, the patient can die.

[69] Ultimately, Dr. Shkrum concluded:

• Mr. Shellnutt received three blows to the head.
• The first blow was a punch from the unidentified man in the black pants. This blow likely caused the fracture near the central area of the right side of the mandible.
• This first blow caused Mr. Shellnutt to fall backward. The first blow caused the second blow, which was Mr. Shellnutt hitting his head on the sidewalk. Dr. Shkrum agreed with Dr. Ramsay that this first blow resulted in the epidural hematoma. The way I read the report is that it was the first blow that caused the collapse which caused the head to hit the ground which caused the hematoma.
• This second blow caused brain contusions. The third blow, the blow struck by Mr. Alvarez, was the punch to the jaw while Mr. Shellnutt was laying on the sidewalk. Dr. Shkrum agreed with Dr. Ramsay that this third blow may or may not have caused Mr. Shellnutt’s fractured jaw.

[70] Dr. Shkrum also testified and was cross-examined by the Crown. He agreed in testimony that he could not tell from only from the video which injuries were caused by which actions. He also needed to review the medical records. He testified that the first blow by the man in black pants was a punch to the front of Mr. Shellnutt’s face. It could have caused the jaw fracture. The blow caused Mr. Shellnutt’s fall to the sidewalk. The medical impact of that blow – the fall to the sidewalk – was a fracture on the back of the head extending to the right side of the head. He noted that Dr. Spears thought that this caused a blood vessel to be torn and the resulting hemorrhage. A hemorrhage compresses and shifts the brain. The brain has nowhere to expand and can only expand down the spinal column which can affect heart and breathing. The patient can then go into cardiac arrest. Dr. Shkrum testified that the first punch could have caused the fracture of the jaw. The third punch – the one from Mr. Alvarez – also may or may not have caused the fracture of the jaw. It appeared from the video that Mr. Shellnutt had lost consciousness when Mr. Alvarez punched him. That blow – Mr. Alvarez’s – also could have caused a shifting of the brain but Dr. Shkrum could not say with certainty. In cross-examination, Dr. Shkrum clarified that the second blow – Mr. Shellnutt hitting the pavement – was more significant than the unidentified male’s first blow.

[71] In other words, both experts agreed that the first blow by the unidentified male caused Mr. Shellnutt to fall and hit his head on the sidewalk. Both experts also agreed that the blow to Mr. Shellnutt’s head to the sidewalk caused the main damage to his skull – the hematoma and the fracture. Both experts also agreed that they could not say with certainty which blow caused the fracture of the jaw. Their only disagreement was whether Mr. Shellnutt hit the back of his head or the right side of his head on the pavement. Based on my review of the video I agree with Dr. Shkrum that Mr. Shellnutt hit the back of head.

[72] At the end of the day, based on all the evidence but especially the video, I find that the blow struck by the unidentified man was the cause of the skull fracture and hematoma. I find that it is impossible to say which blow was the cause of the broken jaw.

[73] That said, I also think causation is not the critical question. That is because I find that this was a case of common intention, which is what I will turn to next.

[74] The man in the black pants and Mr. Alvarez both rushed to Mr. Shellnutt with the common purpose of confronting him. Although Mr. Alvarez stated in the EPSR that he only wanted to help his acquaintance (the man in the black pants) I do not accept that. Mr. Alvarez and the unidentified man both rushed to Mr. Shellnutt with the common purpose of confronting and assaulting him. Mr. Alvarez reached Mr. Shellnutt only seconds after the unidentified man. If Mr. Alvarez was coming to help this man, it was not to defend him but to assist or be part of confronting and assaulting Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Alvarez and the man in the black pants did, in fact, confront Mr. Shellnutt. It devolved into a physical confrontation between the unidentified man and Mr. Shellnutt almost immediately, and Mr. Alvarez joined in. It was a two-on-one situation, where Mr. Shellnutt was clearly trying to retreat. Although pushes and shoves were exchanged, I find that the video discloses that both the unidentified man and Mr. Alvarez were the aggressors. When the unidentified man (who I have also called he man in the black pants) struck the first blow, Mr. Alvarez was there and participating in the confrontation. I will excerpt the key sections of Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, modified to suit the circumstances, to illustrate the point:

[1] In some circumstances, one person who has agreed with one or more others to do something unlawful may be found guilty of another crime committed by one of the others carrying out their original agreement. In other words, when two or more persons join together in a criminal venture, each may be responsible for what another does pursuing their original goal.

[2] This basis of establishing a person’s guilt has three elements that may be briefly described as:

• agreement;
• offence; and
• knowledge.

[3] The first element, agreement, requires Crown counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused and the other individual agreed that they would do something unlawful and help each other to do so.

[75] In my view, the video shows that there was a common intention to assault Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Alvarez and the unidentified man both ran towards Mr. Shellnutt and immediately began the physical confrontation. I find that there was an agreement.

[6] The second element, offence, requires proof that one of the persons who was part of the original agreement to assault Mr. Shellnutt, but not Mr. Alvarez, committed an aggravated assault in carrying out the original agreement.

[76] Again, the man in the black pants clearly committed an aggravated assault on Mr. Shellnutt when he punched him.

[7] The third element, knowledge, may be proven in either of two ways.

Crown counsel may prove that Mr. Alvarez actually knew that the man in the black pants would probably assault Mr. Shellnutt in carrying out their original agreement to confront him.

Crown counsel may also prove knowledge by showing that Mr. Alvarez should have known that the man in the black pants would probably assault Mr. Shellnutt in carrying out their original agreement.

[77] I find that Mr. Alvarez actually knew that the man in the black pants would probably assault Mr. Shellnutt. If I am wrong about that, I am also quite sure that as Mr. Alvarez rushed in right behind his friend he should have known that his friend would assault Mr. Shellnutt.

[78] I therefore find that Mr. Alvarez and the other man were joint principals. This was not a consensual fight. This was a 2-on-1 where the unidentified man in the black pants and Mr. Alvaraez confronted Mr. Shellnutt aggressively. Although there was pushing back and forth, Mr. Shellnutt was retreating virtually the entire time from away the two men.

[79] I accept that the Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the blow from either man caused the fracture to Mr. Shellnutt’s jaw. I also accept that the unidentified man in the dark pants struck the blow that literally caused Mr. Shellnut to collapse and hit his head on the pavement. I also don’t think it matters. Both men were jointly liable for that blow, just as the man in the dark pants would have been jointly liable for Mr. Alvarez’s blow to Mr. Shellnutt while he was on the ground.

[80] In Mr. Alvarez’s case, his blow was entirely gratuitous. Mr. Shellnutt was on the ground and incapacitated. That blow was the last thing that happened. It was all part of the same criminal transaction, starting with the initial confrontation between the unidentified man and Mr. Shellnutt. That blow tells us something about Mr. Alvarez’s intentions. Not only was it gratuitous, it also evidence of the common intention to confront and assault Mr. Shellnutt.

[81] I turn next to the question of provocation.

[82] In cross-examination by Mr. Lobel, Mr. Shellnutt testified that he has no memory about what happened that night. He is aware that he had just left a bar with his girlfriend. It as his impression that he was responding to comments about his girlfriend but he did not have a full memory. He agreed that he picked up a bag of garbage and threw it at the car.

[83] There was an element of provocation at work here. Mr. Shellnutt did not disagree. There is no doubt that Mr. Shellnutt threw a bag of garbage at a car. Mr. Alvarez was in that car. In his victim impact statement, Mr. Shellnutt stated:

Though I may have responded in an overly defensive manner to the vulgarity and threats thrown at my partner and I, none of my subsequent actions or my response was deserving of me almost losing my life.

[84] I agree with both of those statements: Mr. Shellnutt responded poorly and inappropriately to whatever comments had been made; in fact, he acted in quite a juvenile manner. That said, the response by Mr. Alvarez and his companion was utterly disproportionate. The legal defence of provocation does not in any way apply, and quite reasonably Mr. Lobel did not argue that it applied. Even though there was certainly that element of provocation, the response was so disproportionate as to be completely unreasonable. Mr. Alvarez was jointly responsible for the fractured jaw, the fractured skull, and the hematoma. He then gratuitously punched the incapacitated and defenceless Mr. Shellnutt. Mr. Alvarez’s response was completely beyond anything that might be considered reasonable in the circumstances. At the end of the day, what happened here was not provocation. It was retaliation for a bag of garbage being thrown.

Range of Sentence

[85] Both counsel submitted a number of cases setting out the range for aggravated assault.

[86] Ms. Winocur relies on R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677, [2011] O.J. No. 1245. The offender was charged with attempted murder and other offences. A jury convicted him of the lesser and included offences of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The offender was a 28-year Indigenous first offender. A Gladue report was filed. The offender and victim were involved in a consensual bar fight over the offender’s ex-girlfriend. The offender inflicted nine knife wounds on the victim including a slash to the face. He had an exacto knife that he legitimately carried for work. The fight eventually became unlawful. Code J. ultimately sentenced the offender to 21 months and two years probation.

[87] At paras. 27-30 Justice Code reviewed several cases involving aggravated assaults. He classified offenders falling into three ranges. His classification has come be to accepted by judges of this Court when sentencing offenders for aggravated assault – an offence for which the range is very wide. I will set out the key excerpts:

At the bottom end is an exceptional case like R. v. Peters (2010), 2010 ONCA 30, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 277 (Ont. C.A.) where an Aboriginal offender received a suspended sentence and three years probation on her guilty plea to aggravated assault. She was twenty-six years old with no prior adult record. She had used a broken beer bottle in the assault, during a bar room dispute, causing serious facial lacerations to the victim. The" Gladue report" disclosed a very difficult upbringing in a violent and abusive home, leading to alcoholism and drug abuse. By the time of sentencing, she had obtained employment and was making real progress in counseling for her substance abuse problems…

In the mid-range are cases where high reformatory sentences have been imposed of between eighteen months and two years less a day. These cases generally involve first offenders and generally contain some elements suggestive of consent fights but where the accused has resorted to excessive force.

At the high end of the range are cases where four to six years imprisonment have been imposed. These cases generally involve recidivists, with serious prior criminal records, or they involve "unprovoked" or "premeditated" assaults with no suggestion of any elements of consent or self-defence.

[88] Ms. Winocur also relied on R. v. Moreau, 2024 ONSC 1579. That case has some similarities to this one. The offender pleaded guilty to an aggravated assault arising out of what Boswell J. described as “an all-too-common occurrence in downtown Barrie - an alcohol-fueled, postclosing time brawl”. The offender punched the victim from behind. The victim fell on the ground. The offender then stomped on the victim’s head at least ten times. The offender identified as Indigenous although that could not be confirmed for the purposes of a pre-sentence report. He had a difficult time in school and a history of fighting. He was employed and in a relationship. He had a problem with substance abuse. He was not a first offender. He had two adult convictions, including a conviction for assault causing bodily harm for which he received a six-month conditional sentence. The victim was very badly injured and required a lengthy and difficult recovery. Defence argued for a conditional sentence.

[89] There are many similarities to this case. I will quote some as set out by Boswell J. at paras. 86, :

I consider the circumstances here to be more serious than the types of cases that Code J. described as generally falling within the upper reformatory range. The circumstances here tend to share more of the characteristics of cases at the high-end of the range. Extreme violence was used. While there may have been some measure of provocation, the fight was not consensual. I would not find it to have been pre-meditated but it was also not spontaneous. The fight was, as I noted, over at the point when Mr. Moreau elected to stomp four times on Mr. Millen's head. Finally, Mr. Moreau's proximate conviction for assault causing bodily harm is a significant aggravating feature of the case.

[90] At paras. 101 and 102:

The gravity of the offence here was extremely serious. This was a vicious, two-on-one attack. Stomping on a person's head when they are unconscious and defenceless is a vicious and cowardly act. It has predictably traumatic results. Indeed, it had very traumatic results in this instance, for both Mr. Millen and his family.

[91] In my view, the gravity of the offence here is more significant than in any of the cases cited by defence counsel that led to the imposition of conditional sentences.

[92] Ultimately Boswell J. imposed a sentence of 2 ½ years.

[93] Mr. Lobel relies on R. v. Ali and Ali, 2022 ONCA 736. The two offenders were brothers. They were convicted of aggravated assault. The trial judge found that one brother punched the complainant and caused him to fall to the floor. The brothers continued to kick the victim while he was down. The sentencing judge called the attack brutal and cowardly but noted that the victim did not suffer any permanent injuries. The two offenders were pro-social with jobs and families but without criminal records. The sentencing judge imposed 15-month custodial sentences, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate for the level of violence. The Court of Appeal substituted conditional sentences.

[94] In R. v. Arshi and Caravella, 2023 ONSC 4014, the offenders were the owner and D.J., respectively, of a bar. They became involved in a significant argument about an unpaid bill. Arshi was convicted of aggravated assault in relation to a victim who had punched a person in the head and was lying unconscious. Caravella was convicted of assault in relation to another person, after stomping on that person’s head. Dawe J. sentenced Arshi to a 15-month conditional sentence and Caravella to 12 months probation.

[95] I note that Boswell J. considered Ali and Arshi when sentencing Mr. Moreau. He found that the level of violence was quite different in those cases.

[96] I find that Mr. Alvarez falls on the high end of the range described by Code J. This was a serious assault with no element of self-defence – especially when the gratuitous blow is considered – by a recidivist with a record for serious criminality who was on federal parole at the time. Absent significant mitigating factors, the range for this case starts at four years. In some ways his case is similar to that of Moreau, except that Mr. Alvarez’s criminal antecedents are much more serious.

Restitution Order

[97] Mr. Shellnutt experienced significant financial loss as a result of this assault. As he was a sole practitioner, he did not have the same level of medical and therapy benefits as he would have in a law firm. As a result he is out of pocket. He is also out wages. However, he agreed in cross-examination that he did recover about $80,000 from a GoFundMe campaign.

[98] The Crown submitted receipts for out-of-pocket expenses of Mr. Shellnutt, including for lost wages, psychiatric expenses, and rehabilitation expenses. Mr. Shellnutt submitted a spreadsheet with the following costs:

• Psychiatric Expenses: $4,130.00
• Physical Rehabilitation: $1,200.00 (No receipt was submitted)
• Lost Wages: $46,143.28
• Family Expenses (including travel and accommodation while Mr. Shellnutt was in hospital): $15,000.00

TOTAL

$65,273.28

[99] A court may order restitution where an offender is convicted of an offence: Criminal Code, s. 738(1)(b). The amounts are limited to pecuniary losses.

[100] A court must be very cautious and restrained in ordering restitution. It is not a substitute for civil proceedings and is not intended to be a mechanism to recover general damages: R. v. Castro, 2010 ONCA 718. The amounts must be “readily ascertainable”: R. v. Davidson, 2018 BCCA 392.

[101] Mr. Shellnutt’s pecuniary losses as a result of this assault are readily ascertainable. I am not certain that compensation for lost wages is properly the subject of a restitution order. Even if it were, I would not order restitution in this case. Mr. Shellnutt was compensated with about $80,000 from a GoFundMe campaign. Under these circumstances I decline to make a restitution order.

Credit for Time Spent In Custody

[102] Mr. Alvarez was released to a halfway house on January 22, 2018. He was released into the community on statutory release on July 22, 2018. When he was arrested on February 1, 2019, his parole was revoked. Mr. Alvarez’s warrant expiry date was March 14, 2021. He was released in June 2021 on bail. As I understand it, he served a 30-day sentence for weapons possession from March 15, 2021, to April 15, 2021. Mr. Alvarez did not address bail until June 24, 2021, when he was released. He therefore accumulated 69 days of Summers credit (or 104 days at 1.5:1).

[103] Mr. Lobel argues that Mr. Alvarez should receive credit for harsh conditions of custody for days spent in custody from his statutory release date until he was released on bail (which was after his warrant expiry date) less the time allocated to the 30-day weapons sentence. He relies on the Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Menezes, 2023 ONCA 838.

[104] In Menezes, the offender breached a conditional sentence order. He was charged with criminal harassment. He did not address bail, so he was effectively detained. A subsequent breach hearing judge considered his to deal with the breach of the conditional sentence. The After several months in custody the breach hearing judge dealt with the breach and applied the time to the breach. The sentencing judge on the criminal harassment case found that giving Summers credit to the offender would amount to double counting. However, the sentencing judge did grant some credit because of the harshness of the conditions of custody, and the breach and the criminal harassment were inextricably linked. Fairburn J.A., however, found that it would be more appropriate to treat the harsh conditions as a mitigating factor, rather than counting the time: Menezes at paras. 80-83 ; R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 ; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344.

[105] Mr. Alvarez’s time in custody from the time of his arrest until his release was 875 days, or just 2 years and about 4 ½ months (less 30 days allocated to the weapons charge). This was, of course, during the worst of COVID where conditions were particularly harsh in jail. I agree that Mr. Alvarez is entitled to some mitigation, and I do take that time into account even though part of it was while he was serving sentence.

[106] I also agree that I can take into account credit for time spent on bail. Mr. Alvarez did spent time on house arrest. His conditions have been gradually loosened. That said, I find that his time on strict bail is a mitigating factor especially since he did not breach his bail conditions in any way: R. v. Downes (2006), 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488 (Ont.C.A.).

Principles of Sentencing

[107] There are several principles of sentencing to be considered here. The fundamental principle is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Other principles include that sentences should be raised or lowered to reflect aggravating and mitigating factors.

[108] In this case, general deterrence is obviously required. Individuals who rush toward conflict and inflict serious injuries should understand that they will receive a sentence that is proportionate to their responsibility. As well, this crime requires denunciation due to its brutal and gratuitous nature.

[109] A significant measure of specific deterrence is also required here. Mr. Alvarez’s criminal record discloses convictions for violence, including serious violence: he has convictions for resisting arrest; forcible confinement; assault with a weapon; uttering threats; assault; and attempted murder with a firearm. His record also discloses a general disregard for the law and court orders: his record includes convictions for fail to comply with probation, obstruct peace officer, fail to comply with recognizance, and fail to comply with an undertaking.

[110] At the same time, the principle of rehabilitation applies. Mr. Alvarez has taken steps towards rehabilitation, not re-offended, and done well while on bail. He has apologized, and I accept that his apology is a sincere one, but his comment to Ms. Richards in the EPSR does not persuade me that he has real insight into what happened. Nonetheless, I accept that Mr. Alvarez’s apology is sincere and that has made important steps towards rehabilitation.

Sentence Imposed And Ancillary Orders

[111] This was a brutal and cowardly two on one. It was wholly disproportionate retaliation for a juvenile act. Mr. Alvarez’s gratuitous punch of Mr. Shellnutt while he down was cowardly. It is especially aggravating that Mr. Alvarez was on parole for a ten-year sentence for attempted murder with a firearm. I agree with the Crown that Mr. Alvarez’s actions as part of a common intention to confront and assault Mr. Shellnutt, and the resulting serious injuries – which almost killed him – merit a significant penitentiary sentence. With respect, I think even the Crown’s position of four years leans to the low side. However, when I also consider that Mr. Alvarez has taken important steps towards rehabilitation, has apologized to the victim and the community, enjoys the support of his partner, friends, and community, and endured harsh conditions of custody, I find that a sentence of three years should be imposed, with Summers credit. I recognize as well that the collateral consequences extend to those he is in a parental or quasi-parental relationship with but those consequences cannot be allowed to compromise a fit sentence: R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830.

[112] With the greatest of respect, I conclude that a conditional sentence would not properly denounce this crime. Even if I were to take a significant period of pre-sentence custody into account as a mitigating factor, it would not take this sentence into conditional sentence territory, and even if it did, under the circumstances it would not be consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. As Justice Doherty observed in Marshall, it would “devour” the sentence and make a fit sentence unfit. Moreover, even with significant mitigation from harsh conditions of custody and rehabilitation anything less than penitentiary time would insufficiently comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing. I say that even acknowledging the strides made by Mr. Alvarez, aware of his challenging background as set out in the EPSR and acknowledging that as a Black man he has been subject to systemic racism. I also accept that Mr. Alvarez takes responsibility for the offence. That said, what the previous offence and the video of this offence tell me is that Mr. Alvarez remains troublingly capable of explosive and potentially deadly violence – although I would have been satisfied that he is not at this point a danger to the community.

[113] Moreover, I find that Mr. Alvarez’s moral blameworthiness for this offence is very high. Mr. Alvarez had a common intention to confront and assault Mr. Shellnutt. But it is his gratuitous punch that illustrates exactly what was happening that evening. A sentence of less than two years would simply fail to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[114] Accordingly, Mr. Alvarez is sentenced to three years (or 1095 days) in the penitentiary, less credit for pre-sentence custody of 104 days. He will have 991 days left to serve. As aggravated assault is a primary designated offence, there will be a DNA order. As well, there will be a s. 109 order for life. There will be a no-contact order with David Shellnut or Allison Woods. I will waive the victim fine surcharge.

R.F. Goldstein J.
Released: May 5, 2025