CITATION: R. v. J.D., 2026 ONSC 2910

COURT FILE NO.: YC-22-80000001-00SR

DATE: 20260525

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

and -

J.D., A young person

Robert Kenny, for the Crown

Paul Aubin, for J.D.

HEARD: January 30, February 3, and May 13, 19 and 25, 2026

warning

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

FORESTELL J.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCE REVIEW

Overview

1On October 7, 2022, J.D. entered a guilty plea to a charge of second-degree murder in relation to the killing of Anthony Martin and to a charge of aggravated assault in relation to the wounding of Taswrell Salmon. At the time of the offences, J.D. was 17 years old.

2On December 30, 2022, I sentenced J.D. to seven years of custody and supervision, pursuant to s. 42(2)(q)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “YCJA”).

3Four of the seven years were to be spent in secure custody and three years under conditional supervision in the community.

4 Section 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (the “YCJA”) provides that where a sentence of more than one year of custody is imposed, that sentence is to be reviewed annually. J.D. appeared before me on January 30 and February 3, 2026, for his annual review.

5This review is governed by s. 94(19) of the YCJA which provides as follows:

94 (19) When a youth justice court reviews under this section a youth sentence imposed in respect of a young person, it may, after giving the young person, a parent of the young person, the Attorney General and the provincial director an opportunity to be heard, having regard to the needs of the young person and the interests of society,

(a) confirm the youth sentence;

(b) release the young person from custody and place the young person under conditional supervision in accordance with the procedure set out in section 105, with any modifications that the circumstances require, for a period not exceeding the remainder of the youth sentence that the young person is then serving; …

6J.D.’s release date under his sentence is December 30, 2026. J.D. requests that I order his release pursuant to s. 94(19)(b).

Circumstances of J.D.

Family History and Background

7J.D.’s background and circumstances were set out in detail in my reasons for sentence and in the progress report filed in the 2024 annual review.

8J.D. was born in Toronto. He is a Black youth who has lived in the Jane and Finch area his whole life. His mother gave birth to J.D. when she was a teenager. His mother has eight children and is currently expecting another child. J.D. was raised mostly by his mother but also spent time being cared for by his grandmothers and his great-grandmother. In grade 8, J.D. lived briefly with one of his grandmothers in Richmond Hill.

9J.D.’s maternal grandmother, A.T., reported that she was involved in crime and gangs for over 25 years. She has successfully rehabilitated herself and, since 2010, has attempted to help youth in her community.

10J.D.’s mother, A.C., had her first child at age 13 and then had J.D. when she was 16 years old and J.D.’s father was 18 years old. A.C., who was raised by A.T. during the time that A.T. was involved in criminality, writes that she feels that she failed J.D. because she did not know how to parent him. She writes that she was not “raised in a normal environment”.

11J.D. did not have a relationship with his father until he was 12 or 13 years old because J.D.’s father was in custody from the time that J.D. was four years old until he was 11 years old. During that time, J.D. was told his father was in Jamaica, but J.D. realized at some point that his father was, in fact, in jail.

12After his father was released from custody, J.D. moved out to Alberta to live with his father. Unfortunately, because of his father’s addiction issues and conflicts with the law, J.D. had to move back to Toronto after about six months.

13J.D.’s mother had partners as J.D. was growing up, but none were father figures to J.D. When J.D. was around 11 to13 years old his mother had a partner who was physically abusive to J.D.

14J.D. is cognitively compromised. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and persistent Depressive Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. J.D. was initially angry and aggressive in custody but over time, he was able to control his reactions. He made progress in his treatment and rehabilitation in youth custody.

15Previous testing showed that J.D. is willing to participate in treatment and committed to change. To continue to make gains, J.D. requires ongoing clinical and educational or vocational services.

16Risk assessment testing at the time of sentencing put J.D.’s risk of violent reoffending at the moderate range. The report noted that J.D.’s living situation at the Arrell Youth Centre addressed J.D.’s risk and clinical needs.

J.D.’s Course in Custody After Sentence

17J.D. was transferred to Maplehurst Correctional Centre in early 2023 upon reaching the age of 20 years. At Maplehurst, he participated in numerous programmes. At his 2024 review, he expressed his desire to be transferred to the Toronto South Detention Centre (the “TSDC”) to access more programming. The 2024 progress report also noted several misconducts received by J.D. that year.

18J.D. was transferred from Maplehurst to the TSDC on February 4, 2024. He was transferred from the TSDC to Central North Correctional Centre on November 15, 2024, in part, because of misconducts.

19J.D. is currently in custody at the Toronto East Detention Centre (the “TEDC”). He has been participating in several rehabilitative programmes over the past year. J.D. has worked with an addictions counsellor and has been involved with a mentor in the Southern Ontario Cocaine Anonymous programme. Both have been assisting J.D. in identifying programmes in the community to support him on release. Unfortunately, lockdowns in the institution have limited the volunteers’ access to J.D. in recent months.

20J.D. has also attended workshops through the Brighter Dayz Community Reintegration Organization. A letter from the executive director indicates that J.D. displayed an avid interest in the program and an eagerness to learn. The workshops address topics directed at reintegration such as Anger Management, Anti-criminal thinking, money management, stress management and substance abuse.

21J.D. has contacted Amadeusz, an organization that supports young people who are incarcerated to create positive change through access to education and community supports. He is currently on the waitlist for post-secondary schooling.

22J.D. attends Urban Rez programming once or twice a week and recently joined an Afrocentric book club at the TEDC.

23J.D. has also been an enthusiastic participant in faith-based programmes, according to a letter from the TEDC Duty Chaplain.

24J.D.’s mother remains supportive of him and is in regular telephone contact. The plan is for J.D. to live with his mother when he is released from secure custody. J.D. has also made contact with the John Howard Society and is connected with the System Navigation Program which is designed to assist with reintegration and facilitate connections to community-based services.

25J.D. has never held a traditional job. He had success as a rapper prior to his arrest and incarceration and was making several thousand dollars a month at one point. He continues to receive residuals from his music. He does not intend to return to a music career upon release. He is interested in working in construction or carpentry or going into business.

26J.D. has acknowledged his past gang involvement. He reports that he has left the gang and distanced himself from it. He requested a condition prohibiting him from being in the Jane-Finch area.

27On the sentence review, I heard from his probation officer, Tony Colosimo. J.D.’s assigned probation officers have changed frequently. Mr. Colosimo had only had limited contact with J.D. prior to the review. At his suggestion, I ordered an update to the s. 34 Report prepared for sentencing.

28The updated report prepared by Dr. Julia Vinik sets out in detail J.D.’s risks and needs. The report assesses J.D.’s risk of reoffence at the lower end of the moderate range. His risk level is lower than assessed in 2022.

29The report indicates, from testing, that J.D. is likely open to accepting treatment and motivated to change. This accords with the impressions reported by J.D.’s family and the service providers who are currently engaged with him.

30The report states that J.D. continues to meet the criteria for the following diagnoses:

Other specified Trauma – and stressor-Related Disorder (persistent trauma with PTSD-like symptoms)
Attention deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Learning Disability
Cannabis use disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Opioid use disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Alcohol use disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment.

31Psychological testing showed that J.D. has shown improvement in his non-verbal reasoning, supportive working memory and processing speed as compared to his 2022 results. The assessors attribute this improvement to the fact that J.D. has abstained from consuming substances, has ceased taking anti-depressants and is being appropriately treated with medication for his ADHD.

32J.D. also reports that he has found the ADHD medication to be helpful in keeping him calm and focused.

33The s. 34 report makes several recommendations to support J.D.’s continued progress. J.D. will require ongoing support and treatment for substance abuse. J.D. has made inquiries into community resources through the John Howard Society. The report recommends a substance abuse programme through CAMH that is culturally responsive to Black youth.

34J.D. would also benefit from individual trauma-based counselling. He will also need to connect with a psychiatrist to manage his ADHD medication in the community.

35Job training and counselling will also be beneficial upon J.D.’s release.

Legal Principles and Analysis

36J.D. requests that his sentence be changed to convert the remaining custodial portion to conditional supervision. His current sentence requires that he spend a further 7 months and 5 days in secure custody before being released under supervision in the community. The Crown submits that J.D. has not met his onus to justify a change in the sentence and that the sentence should be confirmed.

37Some of the principles that apply to this review are the following:

A review under s. 94 is not an appeal or review of the original sentence which is presumed to have been fit.¹
The young person bears the evidentiary and persuasive burden to show that the sentence should be changed. The burden approximates a balance of probabilities².
No single factor determines the outcome of the review. All relevant factors must be considered and weighed in the context of the individual circumstances of each case. For example, where the crime is serious and little time has passed since the sentence, in balancing the needs of the young person and the interests of society, greater weight may be given to the interests of society. ³

38The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. J.J.M.,⁴ described the purpose of mandatory reviews of youth custodial sentences as follows:

The section is obviously salutary. It provides an incentive to young offenders to perform well and to improve their behaviour significantly as quickly as possible. As well, it gives an opportunity to the court to assess the offenders again and to make certain that the appropriate treatment or assistance has been made available to them. It introduces an aspect of review and flexibility into the sentencing procedure, with the result that any marked improvement in the behaviour, outlook and performance of the offender can be rewarded and any deterioration assessed. [Emphasis added]

39Duncan J., in R. v. K.(C.),⁵ considered the balancing of the interests of the young person and the interests of society in the context of the purpose of the review and wrote, at paras. 16 and 17:

16 A review is a reassessment of circumstances subsequent to sentencing. It is designed to monitor and reward rehabilitation and progress but also to make certain that appropriate treatment and programs are made available to the offender....

17 The review focuses on what can now best advance the needs of the young offender and the interests of society and requires a balancing of those two considerations. Consequently, no matter how compelling the attraction to serve the young person's needs, larger public interests cannot be ignored. The interests of society and the needs of a young offender are not distinct, wholly conflicting interests. On many fronts, they obviously promote the same objective. Rehabilitating young offenders serves the best interests of society. However, rehabilitation must include an acceptance by young offenders that they are responsible for the consequences of their conduct and that they cannot act in a manner that threatens the property or person of others. In this fashion, and in many others, the needs of young offenders and the interests of society converge. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

40 Section 38 of the YCJA states that the purpose of sentencing a youth is to “promote their rehabilitation and reintegration into society thereby contributing to the long-term protection of society”.

41Nordheimer J. (as he then was), observed in R. v. M.(S.),⁶ that “If we are truly committed to that principle of rehabilitation then when a young person does all that can be reasonably expected of them, and more, to demonstrate that they are committed to improving themselves as a person, we, as the society to which that young person will eventually return, ought to both reward that change and encourage its continuation. That is in our own self-interest as much as it is in the young person's interest.”

42Applying these principles to the case before me, I have concluded that J.D. should be released from custody and placed under conditional supervision.

43I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that this change is required to advance the interests of society and to address the needs of J.D. I find that J.D. has met the evidentiary and persuasive burden on him to show sufficient change to justify the change in the sentence.

44I have considered the submission of the Crown that J.D. has not met his onus. The Crown submits that a further period of custody is required to allow for the necessary structure and planning for release. The Crown points out that J.D. has been waitlisted for educational opportunities and that there is some programming available to him in the TEDC.

45I find J.D. has demonstrated real progress in the past year. He has meaningfully engaged in programming. He has sought out supports. He has made realistic plans. I have considered the misconduct findings in the past year but note that overall, his conduct has shown real improvement.

46I find that J.D. needs further programming, including counselling and education to achieve rehabilitation. Society has a compelling interest in the rehabilitation of J.D. The long-term protection of society is achieved through J.D.’s rehabilitation.

47I have considered that there are few opportunities for J.D. to continue his attempts to rehabilitate himself because of the lack of programming and the frequent lockdowns in the detention centre. The absence of any programming for offenders sentenced as youth but transferred to adult facilities has been the subject of comment in other cases in Ontario. In R. v. M.T.⁷, Duncan J. wrote as follows:

…adult custody for transferred youth must provide for and accommodate them in a way that conforms to the principles of youth criminal justice….[A]s it relates to review, it means that a failure of adult custody to conform to the principles of youth justice may support a finding that the offender's needs are not being met.

The relevant principles of youth justice include: That the youth criminal justice system must emphasize both rehabilitation and accountability; that sentences imposed must hold the offender accountable and promote his rehabilitation; that programs must be available to youth in custody to assist in rehabilitation; that custody must be safe, fair and humane and be the least restrictive consistent with public safety: (YCJA sections 3, 38, 83). Therefore, as applied to all youth, including transferred youth, it is not acceptable to subject them to unnecessarily strict confinement; it is not acceptable for custody to consist of little more than warehousing; it is not acceptable to provide phantom programs, touted as available yet in reality being non-existent, practically inaccessible or available only at someone's discretion.

48I agree with and adopt the reasoning of Justice Duncan. Young people found guilty under the YCJA who serve their sentences after turning 20 in overcrowded, violence-ridden detention centres with little or no rehabilitative programmes are not having their needs met. The failure to provide meaningful programming or any differential treatment for youth in adult facilities is contrary to the principles and objectives of the YCJA. J.D. has been in various adult detention centers for over 3 years. When he came for his annual review last year, he was on a wait list for post-secondary education. He still has not been able to access a college course. J.D. has reached out to Cocaine Anonymous. The volunteer working with J.D. has not seen J.D. for several months because of ongoing lockdowns at the jail. The conditions in detentions centers including frequent lockdowns have been described in adult sentencing cases in recent years as inhumane.

49There is only extremely limited rehabilitative programming available to J.D. in custody. There is ample rehabilitative programming available in the community. J.D. needs to reintegrate into the community and to begin training that will lead to stable employment. This will not happen in custody. J.D.’s needs are simply not being met in custody. There appears to have been no effort to address the rehabilitative needs of J.D. since his transfer to an adult detention center. Effectively what has occurred is, as described by Duncan J. “little more than warehousing”. There is nothing to suggest that will change in the seven months remaining on the custodial portion of his sentence.

50As I indicated earlier in these reasons, I have concluded that the remaining portion of the sentence should be converted to conditional supervision in the community. In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered the principle that a youth sentence must have meaningful consequences for the young person and that it must promote a sense of responsibility in him and an acknowledgement of the harm that he has done. J.D. has spent, with his presentence custody, over five years in secure custody. He has made commendable progress particularly in the last year and in light of the very difficult conditions of incarceration. He will continue to be subject to supervision. Balancing the interests of rehabilitation and accountability, I am satisfied that both are best addressed by the early release of J.D.

Conclusion

51I therefore order, pursuant to s. 94(19), that J.D. be released from custody and placed on conditional supervision for the remainder of his total sentence.

52The mandatory conditions provided by section 105(2) of the YCJA and which apply throughout the conditional supervision are, that J.D. will:

(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(b) appear before the youth justice court when required by the court to do so;

(c) report to the provincial director or a person designated immediately on release, and then be under the supervision of the provincial director or a person designated by the provincial director;

(d) inform the provincial director immediately on being arrested or questioned by the police;

(e) report to the police, or any named individual, as instructed by the provincial director;

(f) advise the provincial director or designate of his address of residence on release and after release, report immediately to the provincial director any change in that address; in his normal occupation, including employment, vocational or educational training and volunteer work; in his family or financial situation; and that may reasonably be expected to affect his ability to comply with the conditions of the order; and

(g) not own, possess or have the control of any weapon, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device or explosive substance, except for the purpose of employment and only with the prior written approval of his probation officer.

53In addition to the mandatory conditions, I impose the following further conditions which shall apply throughout the conditional supervision, and which require that J.D. will:

(h) have no contact, either directly or indirectly, with the Taswrell Salmon or his family or with the family of Anthony Martin and not attend within 500 meters of any location where he knows them to be;

(i) have no contact directly of indirectly with Tyrese Cudjoe or Elijah Simpson Sweeney

(k) reside with his mother, or at an address approved by his probation officer and not change his address without the prior written approval of his probation officer;

(j) not possess or consume any alcohol, or non-medically prescribed drugs;

(k) attend school or seek employment and provide proof of attendance at school or employment to the probation officer;

(l) attend such counselling, psychotherapy or other therapeutic programmes as are recommended by his probation officer and sign any release forms necessary for his probation officer to monitor his attendance and progress in such programmes;

(m) not to leave his residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except for a medical emergency involving himself, or a member of his immediate family, or in direct company of his mother Alicia Charley, or with the prior written permission of his probation officer;

(n) Not to enter in the area bounded by Steeles Avenue to the North, Keele Street to the East, Weston Road to the west and Sheppard Avenue Weston to the South unless permission is granted by his probation officer in advance in writing;

(o) Not to leave the Province of Ontario unless permission is granted in advance by his probation officer in writing.

Forestell J.

Released: May 25, 2026