R. v. A.D., 2026 ONSC 1853 — Superior Court of Justice | minicounsel

CITATION: R. v. A.D., 2026 ONSC 1853

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-M15584

DATE: 2026/03/26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

A.D.

Accused

David Nugent, for the Crown

Michael Smith, for the Youth

HEARD: March 18, 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

[1]

Background

A.D. comes before the court on an annual review pursuant to s. 94(2) of the of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (“YCJA”) following his guilty plea and sentence for first-degree murder. A.D. was one of four males in a group of eight people involved in a shooting on August 10, 2021, in downtown Ottawa which resulted in the death of 21-year-old Creflo Tansia. A.D. was the only person charged and convicted. He was 17 years and 10 months old at the time.

2On February 4, 2025, I sentenced A.D. to a seven-year Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Order (“IRCS”) that requires A.D. to serve 1277 days (3 ½ years) in secure custody followed by 913 days (2 ½ years) of community supervision. The circumstances of the offence and reasons for sentence are set out in: R. v. A.D., 2025 ONSC 2332

3A.D. was initially at William Hay Institute, a youth facility, following his arrest where he progressed significantly in obtaining further education and addressing his mental health needs. Consequently, the Director and Manager of Probation Servies (“Director”) in Ottawa recommended A.D. participate in the IRCS program. The purpose of an IRCS Order is to provide court-approved treatment and rehabilitation plans designed to reduce the likelihood of re-offending and to support the young person’s reintegration into the community. At the time, the Director having consulted with the Solicitor General for Ontario, understood that A.D would be able to access the programming and services available to him under the IRCS program even if he were transferred to an adult provincial correctional institution such as the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre (“OCDC”).

4Unfortunately, things did not proceed as planned. A.D. was not placed at OCDC, but transferred instead on February 19, 2025, to Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”) in Lindsay, Ontario, a provincial remand institution about five hours from Ottawa. A.D. has been able to access very limited programming since the transfer took place. In addition, he reports, and it is not disputed, that the correctional environment has been challenging. He described frequent lockdowns resulting in him spending extended periods confined to his cell with limited access to showers, telephones, programming, or recreational opportunities.

5A.D. reports that his living conditions are difficult. He is in a cell designed for two individuals but shared by three inmates requiring at least one individual to sleep on the floor near the toilet area which is stressful and unsanitary. He has to remain vigilant in order to avoid conflicts and has observed physical fights between inmates. Due to the high number of inmates but limited number of telephones, he has expressed concern about using the telephone in fear that it might trigger conflict with other inmates in his unit. This curtails his ability to contact his family.

[6]

The Progress Report and Evidence

Ben Gauthier is A.D.’s current Youth Probation Officer. He is an experienced probation officer with considerable knowledge of the IRCS program. He has been supervising A.D. since November 2025. Mr. Gauthier prepared a Progress Report dated March 5, 2026 (“Report”). He also testified at A.D.’s annual review hearing.

7Mr. Gauthier testified that it is very challenging to even meet with A.D. personally in person. If he were to drive to CECC, he might not be able to meet with him or see him for only a short duration because of the number of lockdowns and logistical challenges for visits at the jail.

8Mr. Gauthier noted that when he came on to supervise A.D., he observed that the Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision (“LSI-OR”) that assesses A.D.’s risk needs dated back to April 2025. He has since been advocating to get an update from A.D.’s Social Worker at CECC Stephanie Gibson. He also noted that the LSI-OR suggests a range of interventions that are not realizable at CECC. For example, the LSI-OR recommended A.D. attend for treatment at Algoma Treatment Remand Centre, but when he contacted the center, they advised that they prioritize admissions for individuals who are nearing the end of their custodial sentences and preparing for release. Consequently, it is unlikely that A.D. would meet the admission criteria for placement at that facility to access programming.

9The LSI-OR also recommended that A.D. participate in programming for mental health, addiction, anger management, and education and attend for cognitive behaviour programming to address criminogenic thinking and to promote pro-social decision making. However, as Mr. Gauthier points out in his Report, the only treatment and/or programming A.D. has received since February 2025 while at CECC has been twenty in-person sessions with psychotherapist Dr. Mauro DeLorenzi as well as two family therapy sessions conducted virtually with his mother and brother. A.D. participated in two sessions of an anger management programing, but the course was subsequently cancelled.

10Mr. Gauthier highlighted that programming within the adult correctional system has been significantly limited due to institutional restrictions, staffing shortages, and frequent lockdowns within the facility. Despite these limitations, A.D. attempted to participate in whatever programming was available to him. He notes in his Report that A.D. appears to have benefited from the therapeutic work with Dr. Delorenzi and continues to be motivated to engage in therapy to better understand the factors that may have influenced his past behaviour. A.D. has also continued to maintain strong emotional ties with his family, many of which were present in court for his annual review hearing.

11Mr. Gauthier testified that for A.D. to stay at CECC goes against the purpose and principles of an IRCS Order which aims to provide rehabilitative programming. Nonetheless, Mr. Gauthier could not endorse A.D.’s present release into the community in the absence of a thought-out plan for community supervision.

[12]

Analysis

At an annual review hearing, it is open to the youth judge to do the following pursuant to s. 94(19): (a) confirm the sentence; (b) release the young person from custody and place them under conditional supervision; or (c) if the provincial director recommends, convert the youth sentence under 42(2)(4) to a youth sentence under 42(2)(q) YCJA.

13Alternatively, the provincial director may, with notice to the youth, apply at any time to have the youth transferred to a federal penitentiary pursuant to s. 89(2) YCJA.

14While there are significant concerns about A.D.’s ability to access programming at CECC, Defence posits they are not in a position to bring an application at this time to collapse the custodial portion of A.D.’s sentence. More information is required from CECC about whether any further programming could be provided to A.D. if he remains there.

15Alternatively, the Crown submits that the Director may bring an application pursuant to s. 89.2 YCJA to transfer A.D. to a federal penitentiary which may offer more structured programming and vocational training not otherwise available at a provincial correctional institution. If such a request is to be made, this Court would want evidence that such programming and vocational training would be delivered to A.D. at a federal penitentiary. I state this because the LSI-OR recommended all sorts of programming for A.D. none of which was actually available at CECC.

16Furthermore, before transferring A.D. to a federal penitentiary, this Court would want information about the classification system at the federal penitentiary (minimum, medium, maximum), what level A.D. might be classified at, and the pros, cons, and risks of being placed at a federal penitentiary, particularly for a young adult such as A.D.

17At A.D.’s original sentencing hearing, the Centre for Resilience and Social Development (“CRSD”) indicated it would also be available to support A.D. with the conditional supervision portion of his sentence. No information was provided about their continued involvement with A.D. It would be helpful to know if CRSD has continued to maintain contact with A.D. or the IRCS team and if so, whether they intend to continue to support him in the future.

18Both Crown and Defence concur that the appropriate outcome of this first annual review is that A.D.’s sentence be confirmed. Based on the information presented, I would agree and such order is made accordingly. However, it is apparent from the materials filed that A.D. has been able to access very limited rehabilitative programming and services that would be available to him under the IRCS Order in the first year of his youth sentence. It is also apparent that this is not due to any lack of effort or initiative on his part. As Mr. Gauthier testified to, the IRCS program provides significant funding for rehabilitation programming. However, the offender must be able to access the programming. Finally, while A.D. was very recently disciplined for some misconduct at CECC (so recent it was not known at the time of the writing of the Report), he has continued to be motivated to engage in programming and to pursue post-secondary education.

[19]

Disposition and Orders

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

20There will be an Order for a further review hearing pursuant to s. 94(4) YCJA and for a possible hearing pursuant to s. 89(2) YCJA on September 9-11, 2026. Three days have been set aside. Defence has put on record that it anticipates it may seek to collapse the custodial portion of A.D.’s order at that time, and the Crown anticipates that the provincial director may wish to bring an application to have A.D. transferred to a federal institution where better programming may be available to allow for the effective implementation of the IRCS Order.

21For the next review in September 2026, the following orders are made:

a. That Mr. Gauthier provide, on behalf of the provincial director, an updated progress report for A.D., including information about treatment options at various provincial and federal institutions and any pros, cons, and risks for institutional transfers.

b. That Mr. Gauthier provide an update on whether the IRCS program and funding can be transferred to another province given that A.D. seeks to reside in Montreal, Quebec, for the community supervision portion of his sentence.

c. That Stephanie Gibson, or alternatively, the Social Worker at Central East Correctional Centre assigned to A.D., provide a brief written report about A.D.’s efforts and ability to access programming at CECC and what programming might be available to him at CECC or any other provincial correctional institution.

d. That both Ms. Gibson and Ms. Miriam Salad of CRSD participate in person or virtually to allow the court to address questions with them directly.

e. Subject to further submissions, both parties may have their out-of-town witness testify virtually.

Judge Somji

Released: March 26, 2026

CITATION: R. v. D.M.D., 2026 ONSC 1853