Court File No. CR-24-00000787

Superior Court of Justice

His Majesty the King v. Joshua Drumond

Reasons for Sentence

Before Justice C. Conlan
February 14, 2025
Milton, Ontario

Appearances

• P. Keen, Counsel for the Provincial Crown
• L. O’Connor, Counsel for Joshua Drumond
• L. Pomerant, Counsel for Joshua Drumond

Table of Contents

• Reasons for Sentence – Page 1
• Transcript Ordered: June 5, 2025
• Transcript Completed: June ___, 2025
• Ordering Party Notified: June ___, 2025

Reasons for Sentence

Friday, February 14, 2025

CONLAN, J. (orally):

This case was extensively pre-tried by me prior to today's date on more than one occasion. And thus, I think in an effort to bring the matter to a close, and allow everyone as best they can to move on, I will impose the sentence right away.

I know that this case is extremely difficult for everyone involved. In particular, for those who are present in support of Jason Brown. His family members, his partner, his children, his siblings, other family members, all of those who are present physically and those who perhaps were not able to be here but are here in spirit, I can only imagine how difficult it is.

Unfortunately the ideal result in this case is not something that I can make happen. The ideal result being to turn back time before this date and try to change the course of what happened so that Jason would still be here for all of you. But as you know, I cannot do that. And I am sure that any sentence that the court would impose, any sentence, would not really be seen as sufficient in these circumstances. It would not really be seen as justice in these circumstances.

Any sentence that the court imposes would not really be seen as making much of a difference, as one of the readers of the victim impact statements indicated.

More than 25 years ago, in a case called R. v. Dorsey, the Court of Appeal for Ontario indicated that joint submissions on sentence ought to be accepted by judges except where it is contrary to the public interest such that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In this case, considering all of the circumstances, the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors, I think that this joint submission is a reasonable one.

I understand that it will be very difficult for the family to accept, but from a legal perspective, this joint submission is reasonable.

I do not think that accepting this joint submission, in these circumstances, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

I think that it reflects a proper balancing of the principles of sentencing that are most important in this case, and a proper, a delicate and imperfect, but a proper balancing of the aggravating and the mitigating factors that are present in this case.

And so, I will now outline the details of the sentence that is imposed on Mr. Drumond and then I will give some further reasons, some further oral reasons, why I think that the sentence is a reasonable one.

Sentence Imposed

On the conviction for manslaughter, the court sentences Mr. Drumond to eight years imprisonment. That is 2,920 days, less pre-sentence custody of 464 days, grossed up to the equivalent of 696 days for a net sentence of imprisonment from today of 2,224 days.

There is a primary compulsory DNA order issued.

There is a section 109, Criminal Code, firearms and weapons prohibition order issued for life for all items.

In the circumstances, the victim fine surcharge is waived.

You may have a seat, Mr. Drumond.

Principles of Sentencing

In terms of the principles of sentencing that are most important in this case, I am of the view that the paramount principles of sentencing are denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, the need to separate Mr. Drumond from the rest of society, and rehabilitation.

What do I mean by denunciation? I mean that the court has to impose a sentence that is capable of adequately denouncing the criminal conduct of Mr. Drumond.

What do I mean by general deterrence? I mean that the sentence imposed by the court must be a sentence that is capable of deterring other like-minded members of the community from engaging in this type of criminal behaviour.

What do I mean by specific deterrence? I mean individual deterrence. A sentence that deters Mr. Drumond from coming back to court for any criminal offence, including a violent offence such as this one.

And finally, what do I mean by rehabilitation? I know that the prospect of rehabilitation is something that the family of Mr. Brown will find difficult to conceptualize. But the vast majority of offenders that come to court are capable of some form of rehabilitation.

There are some chronic recidivists, particularly violent ones, who may be beyond the prospect of rehabilitation. The criminal history of Mr. Drumond does not suggest that he has been a criminal.

[Court Record Stopped Due to Power Outage]

THE COURT: Okay, so for the record there was some form of power outage in the courtroom and thus we paused the proceeding for several minutes.

I left off by saying that rehabilitation is something that is in play in this case because although Mr. Drumond has now been convicted of a very serious, a very violent offence, his criminal history does not suggest that he is either a habitual offender of any sort and certainly not a violent habitual offender.

And so, rehabilitation remains a viable prospect for Mr. Drumond, and it is one of the important principles of sentencing in this case.

I see it as secondary to denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the need to separate Mr. Drumond from the rest of society, but it remains an important principle of sentencing.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

In terms of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, I would describe those as follows.

I see it as particularly aggravating the viciousness of the circumstances of Mr. Brown's death.

Whatever it is precisely that immediately preceded Mr. Brown's death, it left terrible injuries on Mr. Brown, and so the circumstances of his confinement, and then later his death, must have been harrowing.

As the agreed facts indicate there were extensive blunt force injuries to Mr. Brown's body and head, numerous bone fractures. The injuries included post-mortem drag marks, black eyes, lacerations to the eyebrow, fracture of the nasal bridge and cheek bone, multiple bruises and lacerations to the skull, multiple abrasions and hemorrhage around multiple rib fractures, fractures of the collarbone, fractures of the sternum, contusions to the lungs, a broken arm, a broken wrist, and a traumatic brain injury.

I do not review those injuries to make this even more difficult for the family members. I am simply reviewing them to illustrate the viciousness of the circumstances that led to Mr. Brown's death. And I see that as an aggravating factor on sentence.

Second, it is aggravating the gross impact that this offence has had on so many people. I listened carefully to the victim impact statements that were read out by the family members. And although I have no way of completely relating to what the family members have said, I can try to understand what they have said.

And it seems to me that what started as complete shock upon learning of the death of Mr. Brown, led to feelings of abject despair on the part of the family members. Immense grief that, to this day, has not really subsided and much uncertainty about what happened.

There are many unanswered questions that remain. And I suspect that that makes this even more difficult for the family members.

So, in this case, I see the severe impact on the family members of Mr. Brown as being aggravating on sentence.

The fact that Mr. Drumond has a criminal history is aggravating on sentence. He is not a first offender that comes before the court, although I must observe that there is only so much weight that can be attributed to the criminal history of the offender in this case.

The criminal history is almost entirely unrelated. And it is dated. It is 10 years old. It consists almost entirely of breaches of court orders and other relatively minor offences.

There is nothing on the criminal record that approaches the conviction that has been entered by the court today against Mr. Drumond. So, the record is aggravating, but to a limited extent.

Mitigating Factors

In terms of the mitigating factors on sentence, by that I mean factors that are present in this case that would tend to lessen the sentence that may otherwise be imposed. The chief mitigating factor is the guilty plea by Mr. Brown.

The guilty plea is treated, in law, in itself as acceptance of responsibility by the offender. It is an expression of remorse on the part of Mr. Drumond.

The guilty plea, although not to the satisfaction of the family, I recognize that, but the guilty plea brought finality to the proceeding, which is important.

It hopefully will enable some form of closure on the part of those who have been impacted by the crime.

The guilty plea has saved considerable resources that would have been expended at a trial of the matter, and any pretrial applications that would have had to be litigated in advance of the trial.

The jurisprudence, the case law, is clear that a guilty plea in the face of triable issues is particularly mitigating.

In other words, a guilty plea that is entered in a slam dunk crown case is mitigating, but to a limited extent. A guilty plea that is entered where there was some foreseeable risk on the part of the prosecution at trial, that is particularly mitigating.

And from what I know about this case, and I know quite a bit about it, due to the extensive pretrial discussions that were had, and what I was told again today, this was, as Mr. Keen put it, an imperfect case on the part of the prosecution.

I am not suggesting that the case could not have been prosecuted at trial, but I am suggesting that there would have been considerable risk to the Crown in prosecuting the matter at trial.

I think there was some legitimate risk that Mr. Drumond may not have been found guilty of any offence related to the death of Mr. Brown if the matter had proceeded to trial.

He may have been found guilty of some other offence on the indictment, but in terms of an offence, either first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter that relates specifically to the death of Mr. Brown, I'm not sure.

The evidence in this case was doggedly pursued by the police, but the police only control the effort that they put into the investigation. They cannot create the evidence where it does not exist.

And the agreed statement of facts read into the record today really says it all in terms of the triable issues in this case.

The Crown cannot establish what happened at the Outlaws Clubhouse.

The Crown cannot establish what happened between the evening of March 12, 2019 and the morning of March 13, 2019.

The evidence does not establish what, if any, involvement Joshua Drumond had with Jason Brown once Mr. Brown arrived at the clubhouse.

And we already know from the agreed facts that Mr. Brown was alive when he left the cemetery.

So, in other words, for a significant period of time immediately preceding the death of Mr. Brown, there are many missing facts. There are many unknowns about what this offender, Mr. Drumond, did or did not do. And thus the guilty plea entered today by Mr. Drumond is particularly mitigating.

Besides the guilty plea, I do think that it is mitigating on sentence, the personal letters that were filed in support of Mr. Drumond. Not because, I want to be clear, not because the letters have anything to do with explaining or justifying or excusing what he did with regard to Mr. Brown.

But they are mitigating because they do tell the court that the life of Mr. Drumond, the life of this offender is bigger than what happened on this occasion. That is what the letters say to the court. In particular, the role that Mr. Drumond has had as a father.

And finally in terms of mitigation this is related to the guilty plea, but it is in part a separate matter. I indicated earlier that the guilty plea is, in and of itself, an acceptance of responsibility and an expression of remorse on the part of Mr. Drumond.

The remorse on the part of Mr. Drumond was repeated in his allocution to the court today, and I see that as mitigating on sentence.

Legal Parameters

In terms of the legal parameters in this case, the family members may want to know that there is no minimum penalty for this offence that was committed by Mr. Drumond. That must be seen as a deliberate choice on the part of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, because there are many offences that carry with them minimum penalties. This is not one.

Other than circumstances where the manslaughter is proven to have involved the use of a firearm, there is no minimum penalty for manslaughter in Canada. Theoretically someone can be sentenced to a community-based sentence for manslaughter.

There is a maximum penalty which is life imprisonment so manslaughter is unquestionably a very serious offence.

In terms of the range of sentence that generally applies for manslaughter, there is quite a range. I have seen cases that fall even at the low penitentiary range and I have seen cases that go up to 18 years imprisonment.

I think generally speaking most cases fall around the six to 12 year range, perhaps up to 15 years in some exceptional circumstances, and sometimes as low as four years for manslaughter.

This sentence imposed today for Mr. Drumond, which is an effective eight-year sentence, in a case with triable issues, certainly falls within the range of sentence.

I recognize that the family members may more easily be able to understand a life sentence for Mr. Drumond, life imprisonment.

Given all of the factors in this case, the aggravating factors, the mitigating factors, the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, I do not think that any sentence close to life imprisonment for Mr. Drumond would be a suitable sentence in this case.

It may be in some instances of manslaughter, although in the 15 years that I have been in this position I cannot recall a manslaughter case that resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment. Certainly not on a guilty plea.

And so, I think that the sentence being imposed here, the sentence put forward by experienced counsel on both sides, is within the range and is a reasonable response.

Conclusion

I will simply end these oral reasons with where I started and that is to acknowledge that this will provide no satisfaction to the family, I understand that. I regret it, but I understand it.

In the circumstances I think this is an appropriate sentence and I cannot impose a sentence that is more than what I think is reasonable in the circumstances simply to recognize that the family will not be satisfied with anything less. It would be improper for me as the sentencing judge to do that.

As difficult as it is to see the pain on the faces of the family, it would be improper for the court to elevate the sentence simply to avoid criticism from the family.

And those are the oral reasons for why I have imposed the sentence that I have imposed.

Counsel Submissions and Endorsements

Counsel, did I leave anything out in terms of the sentence?

P. KEEN: No, my recollection is you included the days, you included the weapons prohibition and included the DNA order. The only thing I'll ask is that you endorse that in the event that counsel needs to speak to you about forfeiture of property, that can be done at a later date.

THE COURT: Yes, I will add that, just one moment. And ought I to endorse that the other counts on the indictment are withdrawn by the Crown as against this offender, as against Mr. Drumond?

P. KEEN: Correct.

THE COURT: I will include that in the endorsement as well. Ms. Pomerant, Mr. O'Connor, anything else?

L. POMERANT: I would just ask, Your Honour, that the letters, I think the letters on behalf of Mr. Drumond, I don't know if they were Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2.

THE COURT: They were collectively marked as Exhibit 1.

L. POMERANT: I would just ask that they attach to the reasons for sentence or whatever follows him in the future so that it will be in his file if that's possible.

THE COURT: Yes, I will be ordering a transcript of the oral reasons for sentence because I'm required to actually for the benefit of Correctional Service Canada. And I will order it on an expedited basis. It will go along with the - well it will not go with the warrant of committal today, but at some point it will go to the correctional authorities. And I will also direct that the letters that have been filed go along as well.

P. KEEN: It should actually be the transcript and all exhibits.

THE COURT: Yes, the transcript and all exhibits including the letters.

L. POMERANT: Thank you. And as my friend indicated, we need to have a discussion. I don't know what items he needs for other matters that might be continuing and we need to have a two-way discussion or a discussion with the officer in charge as well. Hopefully, we don't have to appear back in front of Your Honour in relation to property issues, but as my friend asked, if you could simply endorse the record that if we need to come back before you, we can.

THE COURT: I did.

L. POMERANT: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Keen, Ms. Pomerant and Mr. O’Connor, I'd like to acknowledge on behalf of the court, all of the hard work that you put into the matter. I know that these cases are inherently very difficult. And I know the amount of time and effort that was put into the matter on both sides and it's much appreciated by the court.

P. KEEN: Thank you. Perhaps the only person worrying harder than us is you, Your Honour. We know your schedule right now, and we are very grateful that you found time to fit us in. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED