R. v. Glasgow, 2021 BCPC 92

Citation: R. v. Glasgow 2021 BCPC 92 Date: 20210317 File No: 231828-1 Surrey Registry: 254971-1 Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. DAON GORDON GLASGOW SAGE SOLEIL ALEXIS BORISOFF This Decision is subject to a Corrigendum dated April 14, 2021, which is attached. BAN ON PUBLICATION s. 517(1) CCC ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE (Re Accused Glasgow) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. GULBRANSEN Counsel for the Crown: K. Wendel Counsel for the Accused: W. Jessop

Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: Sept. 15, 16, 17, 18, 22; Oct. 15, 2020; Feb. 12, 2021 Date of Sentence: March 17, 2021 Introduction [ 1 ] On January 30, 2019, Daon Glasgow, while at the Scott Road SkyTrain station, discharged a firearm at a Transit Police officer, hitting him in the hand and the elbow.

After a trial, I acquitted Glasgow on the charge of attempted murder but found him guilty of discharging a restricted firearm with intent to endanger the life of the police officer, intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of other persons, possession of a loaded restricted firearm without being the holder of an authorization or licence to possess it. [ 2 ] Prior to the sentencing hearing on the charges described above, Glasgow entered guilty pleas to charges which arose from the robbery of a marihuana dispensary in Vancouver. [ 3 ] On January 27, 2019, Glasgow and an accomplice entered the premises.

He immediately produced a handgun and deliberately shot a customer in the leg. He and the accomplice then stole various marihuana products and about a hundred dollars in cash. He pleaded guilty to committing robbery while using a firearm, having his face masked with the intent to commit an indictable offence, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure another person and assault causing bodily harm. [ 4 ] When he committed these crimes, Glasgow was on parole for an eight-and-a-half-year sentence on a conviction from manslaughter.

He was also unlawfully at large because he had left the halfway house where he was required to live as part of his parole conditions. [ 5 ] The Crown submits that Mr. Glasgow represents a severe danger to the lives and safety of others. The paramount objective in this sentencing, in the Crown's view, is the isolation of Glasgow from society. Other important objectives are the denunciation and deterrence of wanton gun-related violence. [ 6 ] The Crown, therefore, suggests that an appropriate sentence for all of these offences is in the range of 16 years' imprisonment less the time that Mr.

Glasgow has served in custody while awaiting sentence. [ 7 ] Mr. Glasgow does not deny that these allegations are extremely serious. He argues, however, taking into account his difficult, perhaps tragic, childhood circumstances, the remorse for these criminal acts and for the harm it created to the victims that he feels, his desire to remove himself from the lifestyle which led him to this low point in his life, that a fit cumulative sentence in this case would be in the range of 12 or 13 years in prison less the time he has already served.

Circumstances of the Offences [ 8 ] The full circumstances of the January 30 transaction at the Scott Road SkyTrain station are set out in my judgment of October 15, 2020. Briefly, they are as follows. [ 9 ] In the late afternoon on January 30th, 2019, Mr. Glasgow was walking through a parking lot connected to the Scott Road SkyTrain station. He was carrying a loaded .9mm handgun concealed on his person. He noticed two SkyTrain police officers nearby, Cst. Josh Harms and Cst. Chris Elvidge. They were in an unmarked police vehicle.

He recognized that they were police officers even though they were in civilian clothes. He quickly turned and began running towards the SkyTrain station. The officers were curious about his apparent desire to avoid them so they followed. Glasgow ran into a SkyTrain station entrance, pushed through one of the fare gates without paying and headed up the escalator. He went to the eastbound platform and sat on a seat or a bench among the other commuters. [ 10 ] The officers were close behind him but did not know where he had gone on the SkyTrain platform. Cst. Harms took the eastbound platform and Cst.

Elvidge the westbound. Cst. Harms then saw Mr. Glasgow seated on the bench or the seat and walked towards him, pointing at him to get his attention. Glasgow pulled the loaded handgun from his pants, fired three shots in the officer's direction, striking him once in the hand and once in the elbow. Cst. Harms immediately retreated to get some cover from a low wall, which bordered the escalator. The accused followed the officer with the gun pointed at him but did not fire any more shots. Instead, he ran down the up escalator. [ 11 ] Despite his injuries, Cst.

Harms took out his own firearm and fired several shots down the escalator towards the accused. He missed. At the same time, Glasgow fired two shots from his handgun directly behind himself to deter anyone from chasing him. There were no other persons on the escalator at this time. [ 12 ] Other peace officers on the scene immediately attended to Cst. Harms because of his injuries. The sudden and unexpected shooting created such confusion that Glasgow was able to escape on foot from the SkyTrain station before anyone noticed where he had gone. Much of the incident was recorded on security video.

Glasgow was identified as the shooter soon after his DNA was discovered on a shirt that he had discarded on his escape route. Glasgow was arrested several days later at a residence on Boundary Road. He was still in possession of the handgun and ammunition for it. [ 13 ] Although Cst. Harms was eventually able to return to work, the effects of the shooting on him were quite serious. He needed surgery to remove a bullet from his right forearm and to repair damage to his left hand. There were multiple fractures to both of those areas and which required surgery to repair.

He has significant scar tissue on his hand and will require further surgery. It is not clear that he will ever recover the full function of his left hand and fingers. Metal plates had to be placed in his left middle finger and his right forearm. [ 14 ] The psychological impact of the shooting is likely quite significant as well. The accused shot Cst. Harms one month before his first child was due to be born. Cst. Harms is haunted by the realization that Glasgow could have taken the officer's life and deprived his

child of a father. My assessment of the officer's victim impact statement is that he is, not surprisingly, angry and shocked by the sheer senselessness of the shooting. Vancouver Offences [ 15 ] Just after 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2019, Glasgow and a female accomplice entered a marihuana dispensary on Kingsway in Vancouver. They were both masked. Glasgow brandished a handgun. There were two staff members in the store and two customers. Glasgow shouted: “Everybody get on the ground”.

There was no immediate response so Glasgow said, according to the occupants: “Do you think this is a joke?” He then shot one of the customers in the leg. After that, both the customers and the staff complied with Glasgow's direction. [ 16 ] Glasgow and his accomplice took about a hundred dollars in cash and put various marihuana products, which were in shelves and drawers in the store, into a large bag, which they had brought with them.

As they left the store, Glasgow told the occupants not to call the police for 15 minutes or he would come back and kill them. [ 17 ] This incident was also captured on security cameras. The shooting took place within seconds of Glasgow entering the store. The customer had not made any sudden movements or gestures before he was shot. Glasgow and his accomplice were only in the store for a few minutes before they left. [ 18 ] Comparison of the bullets that Glasgow shot at the Scott Road SkyTrain station and the bullet that he shot at the customer showed that they came from the same firearm.

This led to Glasgow being identified as one of the robbers and, of course, the shooter. [ 19 ] The customer who was shot in the leg appears not to have suffered any significant or serious injury. He was taken to the hospital and released within an hour. Apparently, the bullet entered one leg and exited through the other leg. No doubt, the whole incident was a traumatic experience for this man, including being shot in the leg.

He declined, however, to provide any further information about the incident's effect on him and did not provide a Victim Impact Statement. [ 20 ] The other three victims did not provide Victim Impact Statements either. Nonetheless, it is a fair conclusion to draw that being robbed at gunpoint would have been a traumatic experience for them as well. Circumstances of the Offender [ 21 ] Mr. Glasgow is now 37 years old. He grew up in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He had a violent and chaotic childhood with drug- addicted parents and a violent and abusive father.

When Glasgow was about 12 years old, his mother finally left her husband and fled to a women's shelter, where Mr. Glasgow and his two siblings lived with their mother for two years. [ 22 ] He did not do well in school and eventually left in Grade 9. He never knew his maternal grandparents because, according to him, they disowned their daughter when she married Mr. Glasgow's father, who was black. Mr. Glasgow has never had a job or had a long- term relationship. It appears that he survived on Social Assistance and by living off criminal activity, likely selling drugs at the low level.

He also fell into the abyss of alcohol and drug abuse. [ 23 ] There was only one glimmer of hope during his teen years. At the age of 14, one of his uncles enrolled him in a boxing club in the neighbourhood in which he lived. It turns out that Mr. Glasgow is a very talented athlete. Within a very short time, he learned how to box and to box very effectively. He won the Canadian championship for his age and weight class. He even travelled to Mexico to participate in the Junior Olympics. Tragically, when he returned, the gym could no longer afford the boxing coach, who left, and Mr.

Glasgow never pursued boxing after that. [ 24 ] When he was 18, Mr.

Glasgow received his first significant jail sentence of two years for a long list of crimes, including robbery and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. [ 25 ] At the age of 22, he was sentenced to 60 days in prison for unlawful possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon. [ 26 ] At the age of 23, he was sentenced to two years in prison for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and a year later to a nine-month concurrent sentence for another charge of possession for the purpose. [ 27 ] Then, on March 27, 2010, when he was 26 years old, he killed a man.

He had negotiated a purchase of a thousand dollars’ worth of hashish and arranged to meet the seller at a McDonald's restaurant, which happens to be a short distance from the Scott Road SkyTrain station. The two men went into the washroom of that location, the McDonald's, a struggle or a commotion occurred, a gunshot was fired and Mr. Glasgow fled the area. The other man emerged from the washroom and collapsed inside the restaurant. He died of a gunshot wound to his heart. The firearm used to shoot him was a handgun, probably either a .38 Special or a .357 Magnum. Glasgow was arrested later that same evening.

He remained in custody pending trial. [ 28 ] On April 28, 2011, Mr. Glasgow pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter with a firearm. The Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted that a fit sentence was 10 years in prison less the time served in custody awaiting trial. The trial judge imposed that recommended sentence which amounted to an additional eight and a half years in prison. [ 29 ] I have taken the circumstances I just set out from the Reasons for Sentence reported at 2011 BCSC 840 . [ 30 ] When he committed the homicide, Glasgow was on parole.

He was also subject to a lifetime firearms and weapons prohibition imposed pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code . The only positive note at the sentencing was mentioned at para. 11 of the Reasons for Sentence in which the trial judge said, referring here to Mr. Glasgow: He has also expressed a genuine remorse for the pain and loss he has caused to the Scott family.

(Scott was the victim.) The judge went on to say: The letters of reference that have been filed in support of Mr. Glasgow suggest that he has the potential to turn his life around andbecome a contributing member of the community. [31] Glasgow was not paroled on the manslaughter sentence until November 22, 2018, about seven and a half years after beingsentenced. [32] On December 20, 2018, he left the halfway house where he was required to stay while on parole. He was, therefore, unlawfullyat large when he committed the offences, which are the subject of this sentencing proceeding.

What is a Fit Sentence? [33] Counsel agree that the sentence imposed on the January 30 transaction, the shooting of Cst. Harms, should be consecutive to theJanuary 27 transaction, the robbery. Counsel also agree that the sentences on the separate charges on each Information should beconcurrent to each other. There is also no doubt that the paramount sentencing objective in this case is that Mr. Glasgow be separatedfrom society for a significant number of years for the protection of other members of Canadian society. [34] In imposing consecutive sentences, I must be guided by s. 718.2(

c) of the Canadian Criminal Code, which states: ...where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh... [35] In every sentencing case, a judge must apply general principles of law to the particular circumstances of the offender and of theoffence or offences. Nonetheless, I must strive to impose a sentence which is similar to those imposed for similar offences committed insimilar circumstances by offenders who are similarly situated to Mr. Glasgow. That is set out in s. 718.2(

h) of the Criminal Code.Ultimately, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [36] The circumstances in the case at bar are so grave and the moral culpability or degree of responsibility of the offender is soserious that one cannot say that there are any precedents which are particularly similar. Nonetheless, there are cases in which sentenceswere imposed for roughly similar cases and in which the offenders had equally bad or worse records than Mr. Glasgow.

But there areaggravating circumstances in Glasgow's case, which are not found in the same abundance in other cases.

For example, that Glasgow wason parole for manslaughter with a firearm; that the sentence that he received on that conviction was a lengthy one; that he was unlawfullyat large; that he was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code; that he caused serious physical andpsychological harm to a victim, who is also a police officer; that he committed two separate series of very serious offences involving thedischarge of a handgun within a three-day period; that there is a high risk that he will re-offend by committing further violent offencesusing a firearm. [37] All of the cases which both counsel have filed in their argument, illustrate that the courts have consistently imposed significantprison sentences on offenders for possession of loaded restricted or prohibited firearms and progressively longer sentences for those whohave discharged these firearms either endangering others or actually causing injury or who have used such firearms to intimidate others inthe course of a robbery. [38] This approach was explained by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of R. v.

Kachuol, 2017 BCJ No. 1591. In thatcase, the court allowed a Crown appeal on a sentence imposed for possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm. The accusedwas a relatively young man with only one prior conviction. Nonetheless, the court decided that a fit sentence in those circumstances wasthree years in prison. In explaining the court's decision, Madam Justice Dickson writing for the court, stated at para. 25: In recent years, Canadian courts have become increasingly concerned by the proliferation of handguns, gun violence and the direconsequences for our society.

Guns are inherently, often lethally, dangerous, all the more so when they are possessed for an illicitpurpose. As a result, their possession and use is highly regulated and, if unlawful, criminalized to ensure public safety, express society’scondemnation and punish offenders.

To the extent possible, courts strive to achieve these goals when imposing sentences for firearms-related offences by prioritizing deterrence and denunciation, following customary sentencing ranges in all but exceptional cases and fullyaccounting for aggravating factors where they exist. [39] Of all the cases cited by counsel, there are two which provide some guidance on the range of sentence that would be appropriatefor the case at bar.

First, on a charge of discharging a firearm with intent to wound and, second, in a case of committing a robbery with afirearm and discharging a firearm with intent to wound during the robbery. They are R. v. Olson, 2021 BCJ No. 65, that is from theBritish Columbia Supreme Court, and R. v. Agin, 2018 BCCA 133 , 2018 BCJ No. 659, that is the British Columbia Court ofAppeal. [40] I will deal with Olson first. Olson and another man went to a late evening meeting with the victim at a gas station in Chilliwack.They were all involved in the drug business.

A dispute arose and Olson struck the victim in the head with a sawed-off shotgun. Thevictim fled to his car and Olson and his companion pursued. Olson was the passenger and his companion drove in pursuit of the victim.Olson fired several shots from a prohibited or restricted handgun, which was not recovered and was not part of any charges. One of theshots struck the victim in the head. Miraculously, the victim survived and the bullet was still lodged in his head at the time of thesentencing. Two days later, the accused was detected by the police in possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

He fled the scene but wasarrested soon afterwards. He was found in possession of one loaded sawed-off shotgun, which had the DNA of the victim on it. He wasalso found in possession of another sawed-off shotgun. [41] Olson was convicted of assault with a weapon, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm,possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of stolen property, obstructing a peace officer. He was 41 years old and had anextensive criminal record containing approximately 45 convictions.

He had two convictions for robbery, one for use of a firearm incommitting an offence, assault with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer, two convictions for threatening to cause death or bodily harm.The longest jail sentence he had ever served was 44 months for breaking and entering with intent to commit robbery. He had been

released from his last prison sentence less than a month before he committed the offences described above. [ 42 ] The trial judge sentenced Olson to a cumulative sentence of 11 and a half years, consisting of consecutive sentences relating to a group of offences surrounding the initial assault, another group of offences surrounding the pursuit and then another group of sentences for possession of stolen property. Of note, the trial judge found that a 10-year sentence for the offender for the conviction on the possession of a loaded prohibited weapon and for the reckless discharge of a firearm would be fit.

That is, the judge determined that two consecutive sentences would be the way to approach that and, in looking at what sentence to impose, the judge decided that a fit sentence on the possession of the prohibited weapon would be five years and a consecutive sentence of seven years for the reckless discharge of the firearm would be fit. [ 43 ] Considering the principle of totality, the trial judge concluded that that would be unduly harsh or long and instead reduced it to a 10-year sentence, four years for the possession of the prohibited weapon and six years for the reckless discharge of a firearm.

What I say is of note there is that the judge, after considering all those factors, determined that a fit sentence for the possession of the weapon and the reckless discharge would be 10 years. [ 44 ] It is noteworthy that, while Olson had a very long record, he had never been convicted of using a firearm to cause a person's death. Also, the sentence concerned one episode of violent behaviour involving the discharge of a firearm. Mr. Glasgow is being sentenced on two separate very serious incidents involving the discharge of a firearm. [ 45 ] The Agin case.

Agin attempted to rob the occupants of a legal marihuana-growing facility. He entered those premises armed with a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm, a handgun. Upon first entering and encountering an employee, he struck that person twice on the head with the handgun. When he then next went into another room of that facility, a different employee actually charged at him so Agin shot that man in the leg. Agin then abandoned his attempt to commit robbery and fled the scene. As he was leaving, he fired another shot at another employee who was standing by a truck in the parking lot.

Fortunately, Agin missed. [ 46 ] Agin was convicted of committing a robbery while using a prohibited firearm, discharging a prohibited firearm with the intent to wound, maim or disfigure and aggravated assault. The trial judge sentenced him to an effective sentence of 11 years. He also received credit for time served. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence. [ 47 ] Agin was 31 years old and had an extensive criminal record, consisting of at least 48 prior convictions.

He had been released from prison after serving a sentence for assault with a weapon only one month before he committed the offences on which he was sentenced. He was also subject to a firearms prohibition when he committed the offences. However, Agin did not have a prior conviction for causing the death of a person with a firearm. As well, he was sentenced on only one transaction involving serious firearm violence.

The latter decision nonetheless assists in deciding what a fit sentence would be for the offence of robbery. [ 48 ] I now refer to the Vancouver charges on Information 25497-1. [ 49 ] Taking into account the many aggravating factors I have referred to above and the fact that Glasgow actually shot someone during the robbery and that he was on parole on a 10-year sentence for firearms-related violence, a fit sentence, in my view, would be in the range of 11 to 13 years. [ 50 ] The Olson decision is also of assistance in assessing what the proper range of sentences for the charge of discharging a restricted or prohibited firearm with intent to endanger the life of Cst.

Harms on Information number 231828. [ 51 ] In my view, taking into account the aggravating circumstances already referred to and the fact that when he committed the offence, he had committed a violent crime involving the use of a firearm just three days before, a fit sentence in this circumstance would be in the range of 12 to 14 years. [ 52 ] I conclude, therefore, that I would impose a sentence on Count 1 of Information 254971-1 of 11 years imprisonment; I would impose a sentence on Count 2 on Information 231328 of 12 years in prison, consecutive to the first sentence.

That would make a cumulative sentence of 23 years. The question then is, would such a sentence be unduly harsh or lengthy? [ 53 ] On first glance, given the extraordinarily disturbing circumstances of this case, that is, a man on parole for a 10-year sentence for killing someone with a firearm commits first a robbery in which he shoots a customer in the premises for no objectively verifiable reason and then shoots at and wounds a police officer on the SkyTrain platform occupied by several other people, also endangering their lives.

Such a lengthy sentence may be necessary to satisfy the need to denounce such outrageous conduct and to isolate Mr. Glasgow from society. [ 54 ] However, there is a significant mitigating factor at play here. Mr. Glasgow has never denied responsibility for his actions. He only litigated the issue of whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he attempted to murder Cst. Harms. Otherwise, he accepted that he was guilty of the other related and serious offences. He pleaded guilty to the robbery-related charges arising out of Vancouver.

He has again expressed his sorrow and remorse for the harm he has caused others and vows that he will never again pick up a weapon. I note, however, as I mentioned above, that he expressed what the trial judge in the manslaughter conviction referred to as sincere remorse for his act of taking another man's life. [ 55 ] Mr. Glasgow addressed the court after the sentencing submissions were made. He made a very dignified and apparently genuine statement in which he showed some insight into the gravity of his crimes.

In particular, he made a point of thanking the police officers who arrested him for acting so professionally. That is, he recognized that by his reckless and terrifying actions on the SkyTrain platform, he had revealed himself as a very dangerous man who might use deadly force should anyone try to arrest him. Also, he had shot a police officer. It would not be surprising, therefore, that anyone attempting to arrest him would take extra caution and would not be hesitant to use their own firearms to protect themselves if he did anything to even hint that he might react violently to their approach.

My point is, that Mr. Glasgow knows very well what he did was wrong and that it was, in fact, terrible and frightening. He also recognizes that he is properly perceived by the authorities and the court system as someone who represents a severe danger to society. Recognizing that fact means that he recognizes how wrong his actions were. That realization provides an opportunity for him to reform. However, opportunity

is one thing and achieving reform is another. I point out that on three separate occasions in his life, Mr. Glasgow has deliberately chosen to use a firearm in circumstances where other persons' lives and safety were gravely endangered. [ 56 ] Nonetheless, it is that remaining glimmer of hope for some redemption on Mr. Glasgow's part that convinces me that such a cumulative sentence, as I have just referred to, would be unduly harsh. [ 57 ] I, therefore, impose a sentence on Count 1 of Information 254971, of eight years. On Count 2 on Information 231828, I impose a sentence of 10 years consecutive.

This would result in a cumulative sentence of 18 years before any calculation of credit for time served. [ 58 ] Dealing with the remainder of the counts first. [ 59 ] On Information 254971, on Count 2, having face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, I impose a sentence of four years. [ 60 ] Count 3, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, maim or disfigure, I impose a sentence of six years. [ 61 ] I direct a stay of proceedings on Count 4, assault causing bodily harm, pursuant to the principles set out in R. v. Kienapple .

The sentences on these counts will be concurrent to Count 1 but consecutive to the sentences imposed on Information 231828. [ 62 ] On the remaining counts on that Information, on Count 3, intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of other persons, I impose a sentence of seven years' imprisonment. [ 63 ] On Count 4, possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without being the holder of a licence or authorization to possess it, I impose a sentence of five years' imprisonment. The sentences are to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in Count 2.

The sentences imposed on this Information are to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed on Information number 254971. [ 64 ] Mr. Glasgow is entitled to be credited for the time served from October 4, 2019, when he finished serving his previous sentence. By my calculation, he has been in custody for 529 days. At 1.5 times credit for time served in custody, he is entitled to be credited with serving 794 days or two years, 64 days. Thus, the cumulative sentence of 18 years must be reduced to 15 years, 301 days.

I will accomplish that by applying the sentencing credit to the longest sentence that I imposed which is the 10-year sentence on Count 2 on Information 231828. That is, therefore, I impose a sentence of seven years, 301 days on that count. The sentences on all the other counts remain the same. [ 65 ] The Crown seeks an order under s. 742.1(1) of the Criminal Code that Glasgow not be eligible for full parole until one-half of his sentence is served. I can make such an order only if I determine that it is necessary to enhance or achieve the goals of deterrence and denunciation.

I do not believe this is required in the case at bar. In my view, the lengthy sentence I have imposed in these proceedings satisfies the need for denunciation and deterrence. [ 66 ] As Mr. Jessop, on behalf of the offender pointed out, Glasgow was not given full parole on his manslaughter charge until he had served about seven-and-a-half of the eight-and-a-half-year sentence. Obviously, he served much more than one-half of his sentence before being given full parole. [ 67 ] Taking into account how spectacularly Mr.

Glasgow failed while on parole for that offence, one must ask how likely is it that the Parole Board will grant Mr. Glasgow any form of early release. The answer is, I believe, that it is extremely unlikely. Thus, making an order under s. 743.1(1) would be a futile exercise. I would, in essence, be telling the Correctional Services of Canada that it cannot do something which it has no intention of doing anyway. I, therefore, decline to make this order. [ 68 ] I order that DNA samples may be taken pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code on all counts of both Informations.

All counts are primary designated offences except Count 4 on Information 231828, which is a secondary designated offence. [ 69 ] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , I prohibit Mr. Glasgow from possessing any of the weapons named in that

section for life. This applies to all counts on both Informations. [ 70 ] The firearm and the ammunition seized from Mr.

Glasgow when he was arrested on Information number 231828, are forfeited, pursuant to s. 491(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 71 ] Pursuant to s. 743.2 of the Criminal Code , I order that my reasons for sentence and the Pre-Sentence Report and the psychological report filed in this sentencing be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada. [ 72 ] The victim fine surcharge is waived in all counts. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM - Released April 14, 2021 In the ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE dated March 17, 2021, I omitted to sentence Mr.

Glasgow on Count 1, the lesser included offence of aggravated assault. The following changes have now been made: Count 1 - I impose a sentence of seven years concurrent with all the other counts; and all ancillary orders apply, including a mandatory DNA order and a mandatory firearms prohibition.