WARNING

Section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 prohibits the publication of the name of the young person or any other information that would identify them.

Court Information

Court File No.: YC-23-30000009-0000 Date: 2025-08-29 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King and Z.S., a Young Person

Counsel: Jason Gorda and Serge Michel Eta-Ndu, for the Crown Andrew Menchynski and Thomas Pittman, for the Young Person

Heard: August 15, 2025

Judge: Forestell J.

Reasons for Sentence

Overview and Issues

[1] Z.S. has entered a guilty plea to a charge of first-degree murder in relation to the killing of Javonte Daley on June 8, 2022. At the time of the murder, Z.S. was 16 years old. He is now 19 years old and will turn 20 next month. The provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the "YCJA") govern this sentencing because of his age at the time of the offence.

[2] Although the Crown had previously served notice of an intention to seek an adult sentence in this case, after the receipt and review of the report prepared by Dr. Julia Vinik assessing Z.S.'s psychological, behavioural, and mental health issues and his risk of reoffending, the Crown took the position that a youth disposition was appropriate.

[3] Both Crown and defence submit that an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision ("IRCS") Order pursuant to s. 42(2)(r)(B) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is appropriate. They also agree that while the maximum length of 10 years would have been appropriate, the 38 months of presentence custody served by Z.S. should reduce that sentence by one year, resulting in an IRCS order of nine years with five years in custody and four years in the community under supervision.

[4] I agree that the IRCS order proposed by the parties is the appropriate disposition. I will set out the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the young person and then explain my reasons for this conclusion.

Circumstances of the Offence

[5] The circumstances of the offence are set out in detail in the Agreed Facts. Z.S. and two other males got out of a car in the area of Lawrence Avenue and Kingston Road. They walked to the front of a plaza and engaged with the victim, Mr. Daley, and then ran to the back of a nearby apartment building. Mr. Daley followed. Once at the rear of the building, all three men approached Mr. Daley and shot him repeatedly – even after he was lying on the ground. The three men then ran to the car that had dropped them in the area. The car sped away from the scene.

[6] Z.S. admitted in the agreed facts that he was one of the young men who shot and killed Mr. Daley. He admitted that he attended with the others to participate in a plan to target, shoot and kill someone or to shoot a person and cause bodily harm he knew was likely to cause death. One of the other persons charged in this killing told the police that the murder of Mr. Daley was motivated by the fact that Z.S. had been shot at the previous day. Mr. Daley was targeted because he was in the area associated with the person who shot at Z.S.

Victim Impact

[7] Victim Impact Statements from Javonte Daley's mother, sister, aunt, grandmother, fiancée and pastor were read and filed at the sentencing hearing. They describe the immense impact his death has had on his loved ones. They also provide me with a picture of who Javonte Daley was. He was a person who was loved and respected. He was a friend, a role model and a mentor. Javonte Daley was a very young man with a promising future when that future was taken from him. His death has impacted his family and friends, and it has also impacted the community. This type of random, senseless, and callous violence strikes at our community's sense of security.

Circumstances of Z.S.

[8] Z.S.'s background and circumstances are set out in considerable detail in the reports filed on sentencing. I have considered carefully the s. 34 Assessment report of Dr. Julia Vinik and the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Suitability Assessment Report.

[9] Dr. Vinik, in her s. 34 assessment, concludes that Z.S. is a highly vulnerable youth who has faced numerous adversities in his upbringing. He has experienced multiple traumatic events, financial difficulties, racial discrimination, housing instability, criminal involvement of family members and violence and crime in his community.

[10] Z.S. visited his father in jail when he was 7 or 8 years old. At the time of the visit, his father was involved in a physical fight with another inmate that was witnessed by Z.S. When he was 11 or 12, his home was raided by the police in the middle of the night. He struggled to sleep and experienced anxiety after the raid. He witnessed his mother being arrested when he was 13 years old. He was shot at on multiple occasions when he was 14 to 16 years old.

[11] Z.S. has "significant neurodevelopmental needs". Dr. Vinik opined that Z.S. met the criteria for diagnoses of: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"); Post-traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"); Major Depressive Disorder; recurrent, Cannabis Use Disorder in remission; and opioid use disorder in remission. He was at one point diagnosed with a conduct disorder, but Dr. Vinik found that he no longer met the criteria for a conduct disorder.

[12] Z.S.'s mother has always been his primary caregiver. His father and mother separated when Z.S. was twelve years old. Although he and his mother have had some conflicts during his teen years, they report that the relationship has improved since Z.S. has been in custody. Z.S. attributes this to being more clear-headed because he was no longer using cannabis. His mother remains supportive of him.

[13] Z.S. struggled in school. He left school in Grade 11, having only obtained eight credits. His attendance at school was poor and he rarely completed his schoolwork. Since he has been in detention, he has completed high school. He attributes his success to the fact that he was not using substances and he was required to attend. To obtain his high school diploma he had to complete community service hours. He did the community service through Urban Rez. His volunteer work involved going to meetings, talking with youth, and cleaning up after the meetings.

[14] Psychoeducational testing showed that Z.S.'s cognitive and academic abilities are well below age expectations. The deficits impact his ability to process, comprehend and make decisions in complex situations, especially when experiencing strong emotions. Strengths were also identified. Z.S. has stronger verbal abilities and reading comprehension.

[15] The report of Dr. Vinik found that Z.S.'s challenges make him highly vulnerable to negative peer influences. She notes that he has a longstanding pattern of rule-breaking and illegal behaviour. However, while in detention he has distanced himself from negative peers and expressed the intention to maintain that distance. There has been a substantial improvement in his behaviour with fewer instances of anger or aggression. He has recognized his need for support and therapy.

[16] In her recommendations, Dr. Vinik writes that Z.S. should engage in individual, trauma-informed and culturally grounded therapy. This should include substance use treatment and consultation with a psychiatrist to discuss medical management of his symptoms of ADHD and depression.

Analysis

[17] The purpose of sentencing under the YCJA is to hold young persons accountable through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his rehabilitation and reintegration into society thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

[18] The factors that I must consider in determining a youth sentence are enumerated in subsection 38(3) of the YCJA. The relevant factors applicable in this case are: the degree of participation of the young person; the harm done to the victim and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; any aggravating or mitigating circumstances; and the time spent in detention as a result of the offence.

[19] Z.S. was full participant in the murder of Mr. Daley. The harm done to the victims in this case was profound and foreseeable. The aggravating circumstances include the use of firearms by multiple assailants on a sole unarmed man; the number of shots fired; the fact they were fired even after Mr. Daley was lying on the ground; and the flight of Z.S. after the offence. Mitigating factors are that Z.S. has several mental health challenges; he has had a difficult upbringing and experienced multiple traumatic events; and he is, as a result of his cognitive challenges, vulnerable to manipulation by others. A significant mitigating factor is that Z.S. has shown remorse through his guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility; he has shown progress toward rehabilitation in recent months; and, he has committed to engaging in intensive treatment and programming going forward.

[20] Having considered the principles and objectives in the YCJA and the circumstances of the offence and of Z.S., I have no difficulty in accepting the submissions of both counsel that a lengthy IRCS sentence is the appropriate disposition in this case. An IRCS sentence provides enhanced rehabilitative programming for youth with serious mental health issues who have committed the most serious offences. Increased resources are made available for a wider range of programming and a greater intensity of programming throughout the custodial and community-based portions of the sentence.

[21] Pursuant to s. 42(7), an IRCS order can only be imposed if the following four conditions are satisfied:

(a) the young person has been found guilty of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, or a third serious violent crime;

(b) the young person is suffering from a mental illness or disorder, a psychological disorder or an emotional disturbance;

(c) a plan of treatment and intensive supervision has been developed for the young person, and there are reasonable grounds to believe the plan might reduce the young person's risk of recidivism; and

(d) the provincial director has determined that an IRCS program is available and the young person's participation in it is appropriate.

[22] On the evidence before me, Z.S. meets all of these conditions. Z.S. has significant challenges requiring long-term treatment, counselling, and support to advance his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The plan set out in the IRCS suitability assessment Report addresses the needs of Z.S. and provides reasonable grounds to believe that the plan will reduce Z.S.'s risk of recidivism.

[23] Z.S. has shown himself to be capable of making real progress in rehabilitation while he has been in custody. He has been engaged in counselling and education. He has taken responsibility for his actions. The proposed plan will allow him to continue that work.

[24] While Z.S. has started the rehabilitative process, it is a long-term process. To his credit, Z.S. himself recognizes that this process will take years.

[25] It is well-settled law that although I must consider presentence custody in sentencing a young person, the treatment of the pre-sentence custody is discretionary.[1] I find that the joint submission that I credit one year for the presentence custody balances the need to recognize the time and work already engaged in by Z.S. against the need for a significant period of support and supervision to meet the other objectives of sentencing.

[26] For this reason, I have concluded that Z.S. should receive the suggested credit of one year for the time spent in pre-sentence custody, leaving five years to serve in custody and four years under conditional supervision.

Conclusion

[27] I therefore order that Z.S. be subject to an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision order for a period of nine years.

[28] Five years will be spent in custody. The remaining four years will be served under conditional supervision in the community. The mandatory conditions will apply to the conditional supervision with other conditions to be determined before Z.S.'s release into the community. The Placement Plan in the IRCS Suitability Assessment Report calls for Z.S. to be placed at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre ("RMYC") based on the specialized service needs of Z.S. and the ability of the RMYC to facilitate his participation in treatment programs and services. RMYC is a secure custody facility. I therefore order that the custodial sentence be served in a secure facility. As noted in the report, future placement decisions will be made based on Z.S.'s evolving treatment needs and reintegration goals.

[29] There will also be an order pursuant to section 487.051 (a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 authorizing the taking of bodily substances for the purpose of DNA analysis. A firearm was used in the commission of this offence, and I find that it is appropriate to make a further order pursuant to section 51(1) of the YCJA prohibiting Z.S. from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for life.

[30] Finally, I make an order pursuant to section 42(2)(j) of the YCJA and section 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Z.S. from communicating directly or indirectly with any member of the family of Javonte Daley including Mr. Daley's fiancée.

Forestell J.

Released: August 29, 2025

[1] R. v. S. (D.), 2008 ONCA 740, 93 O.R. (3d) 211, at para. 26; R. v. W. (D.), 2008 ONCA 268, at para. 3.