R. v. A.D.S., 2026 ONSC 1598

-CITATION: R. v. A.D.S., 2026 ONSC 1598

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-Y1140068

DATE: 2026/03/23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

A.D.S.

Accused

Khorshid Rad, for the Crown

Michael Johnston, for the Accused

HEARD: March 16, 2026

Publication Ban

Information contained herein with respect to the identity of the youth is prohibited from publication pursuant to Section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Youth criminal justice act annual review

Somji J

1A.D.S. is before the court on an annual review pursuant to s. 94(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) following his conviction and sentence for the first-degree murder of O.A. who was 18 years of age the time.

2Following a joint submission on sentence by Crown and Defence, I sentenced A.D.S as an adult pursuant to s. 42(2)(q)(i) YCJA and imposed a sentence of 10 years, the first six years to be served in secure custody and the remaining four years to be served under conditional supervision within the community. The circumstances of the murder and my reasons for sentence are set out in the following decision: R. v. A.D.S. 2025 CarswellOnt 132, 2025 ONSC 144, 2025 W.C.B. 27.

3Both Crown and Defence concur that the appropriate outcome of this first annual review is that A.D.S.’ sentence be confirmed. While I agree that this is the appropriate order to be imposed at this time, it is apparent to me that A.D.S. has not been able to access rehabilitative programming and services in the first year of this youth sentence. Furthermore, I am not persuaded, based on the materials filed and the submissions made, including from A.D.S. himself, that this is the result of any lack of effort or initiative on his part.

4A.D.S.’ current youth probation officer, Ms. Eloise Mark Wallace, filed a Progress Report dated February 27, 2026 (“Progress Report”). Mark Wallace is probation officer’s complete last name. Ms. Mark Wallace took over supervising A.D.S. in July 2025. She reports that A.D.S was at the William Hay Institute following his arrest, where he made significant strides in his education and mental health. This was also reflected in my sentencing decision. However, his application to remain at William Hay for part or all of his youth sentence was denied, and he was subsequently transferred to a provincial adult correctional centre. On April 21, 2025, A.D.S. moved to the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”), located in Lindsay, Ontario.

5According to the Progress Report, A.D.S. has not been able to access any educational or rehabilitative programming since he changed facilities. For example:

a. Post-secondary educational programming is not available to him in any format now that he has graduated from high school (which he did while at William Hay).

b. The African Canadian Excellence (“ACE”) Program and Men’s Education Programs are available. Ms. Stephanie Gibson, the CECC Social Worker, reported to Ms. Mark Wallace that she did not receive a letter of interest from A.D.S. to participate in either program. In contrast, A.D.S states he did express an interest in the ACE program but was told that it was unavailable to him because no one else in his unit of 40 people expressed interest. He says it is not possible to change units easily. A.D.S. also states he was unaware of the Men’s Program. Ms. Gibson was not before the court to address the programming at CECC and this discrepancy in the evidence. Given A.D.S.’s motivation to date, I am not prepared to find that his failure to participate was a result of a lack of interest expressed by him.

c. Programming and services through Centre for Resilience and Social Development (CRSD) have also been unavailable. Other than speaking with a youth worker, Ms. Mariam Salad, once a month, CRSD has not been able to assist A.S.D. in accessing any other therapeutic resources.

d. A.D.S. is interested in programming at Algoma Treatment Centre for emotional regulation and anger management. However, he was advised that there is an extensive waitlist. No further information was provided about his prospects of attending for treatment there.

6While Ms. Mark Wallace did her best to address the above-noted issues, she was limited in her ability to report on what had transpired at CECC given she resides in Ottawa and has limited access to information related to what is happening in A.D.S.’ day-to-day life at CECC. This information can best be provided by Ms. Stephanie Gibson, the CECC Social Worker. Furthermore, Ms. Mariam Salad, the Team Lead with CRSD was also not present at the hearing to address what community support and services could be made available to A.D.S. presently or upon his eventual transition into the community. In this regard, I note that CRSD is based in Ottawa, and it is A.D.S. intent to be eventually released into the community of Windsor where his family presently resides.

7At paragraph 21 of my sentencing decision, I recommenced that A.D.S. undertake a forensic psychiatric assessment. Ms. Mark Wallace does not believe this occurred and remains unsure if it can still be provided. I continue to maintain that based on the materials filed at sentencing, A.D.S. could benefit from a forensic psychiatric assessment to address if he requires any further treatment and programming.

8A.D.S.’ mother and family members travelled from Windsor, Ontario, to attend his review hearing today. They continue to contact him weekly and visit him when possible, recognizing that CECC is about 6 hours away from Windsor.

9It is clear from reviewing the Progress Report, that A.D.S. has not been able to access any educational or rehabilitative programming since being moved. This is of concern given that rehabilitation is a paramount principle in the sentencing of youth. Furthermore, inability to access programming at an institutional facility can form the basis of a youth to seek collapse of his custodial sentence and to serve the remainder of his sentence in the community. While A.D.S. is not making such a request at this time, it may be a factor for consideration in future annual reviews. Of course, the onus will be on him in such an application.

10At this stage, I agree with Defence and Crown that it is appropriate to order that A.D.S.’s sentence be confirmed pursuant to s. 94(19) YCJA and such an order is accordingly made. However, I am not prepared to leave the matter in abeyance for another year. To ensure that efforts are being made to have A.D.S access rehabilitative programming to the full extent available at this and/or various other custodial facilities, there will be a further review of the youth sentence pursuant to 94(4) YCJA on October 9, 2026, at 10 am.

11For that review, the following orders are made:

a. That Ms. Mark Wallace provide, on behalf of the Provincial Director YCJA, with an updated progress report for A.D.S.

b. That Stephanie Gibson, or alternatively, the Social Worker at Central East Correctional Centre assigned to A.D.S., provide a brief written report about A.D.S. efforts and ability to access programming at CECC along with any recommendations for programming that may be available to him. In this regard, it would be helpful to know if more programming might be available in a minimum-security pod and what it would take for A.D.S. to be able to move to such a pod or if movement would even be possible given the security classification system and his conviction for first-degree murder.

c. That Ms. Salad provides a brief written report about efforts made for A.D.S. to access local services in Lindsay (that can come into the facility) and what efforts are being made to develop his eventual transition to the community. This is a concern because CRSD is based in Ottawa and A.D.S. seeks to be released eventually to Windsor, Ontario.

d. That both Ms. Gibson and Ms. Salad participate in the next review hearing in person or virtually to allow the court to address questions with them directly.

12There will be an Order that A.D.S.’ sentence be confirmed pursuant to 94(19) YCJA.

13There will be an Order for a further review on October 9, 2026, before me pursuant to s. 94(4) YCJA.

Judge Somji