Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2021 SKPC 64

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2021 SKPC 64 Date: December 29, 2021 Informations: 991031391, 991031392, 991034074 Location: Saskatoon _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Michael Wayne Gamble Appearing: K. Grier, Q.C. For the Crown M. Nolin For the Accused DANGEROUS OFFENDER SENTENCING DECISION R.D.

JACKSON , J PURSUANT TO S. 753.01(5) CRIMINAL CODE I INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On June 22, 2012, Michael Wayne Gamble, having been convicted after trial for aggravated assault and breach of an undertaking, was declared to be a dangerous offender by Mr. Justice Maher of the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan. [1]

[ 2 ] The sentence then imposed by the Court was a determinate period of incarceration of 72 months (less 26 months remand credit). As well, the accused was placed on a Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) for a further period of 9 years, commencing upon his release into the community. [ 3 ] On July 13, 2018, Mr. Gamble was found guilty following trial of various weapons, driving and breach charges incurred November 12, 2017, while living in the community under his LTSO. [ 4 ] The Crown subsequently made application to have the Court sentence Mr.

Gamble to an indeterminate period of incarceration in a federal penitentiary, pursuant to s. 753.01(5) [2] of the Criminal Code : S. 753.01(5) If the application is for a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, the court shall impose that sentence unless it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is a reasonable expectation that a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted — with or without a new period of long-term supervision — will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence. [ 5 ] Designation of Mr.

Gamble as a dangerous offender was not required as such designation, once made, remains for life. [3] [ 6 ] Numerous exhibits and reports, including Mr. Gamble’s criminal record, were filed with the Court on the sentence hearing. In addition, the Court heard from the following witnesses: Court Assessor Dr.

Shabehram Lohrasbe Crown Craig Podgursky – Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) Stephanie Boileau – CSC, Program Manager (Regional Psychiatric Centre - RPC) Rae-Lynn Wilson – CSC Institutional Parole officer (Saskatchewan Penitentiary) Megan Wieranga – CSC Institutional Parole officer (Bowden Penitentiary) Marilyn Dimakos – CSC Community Parole officer Tammy Rettger – CSC Community Parole officer Constable Robert Keleman – Saskatoon Police Service, Guns and Gangs Unit Constable Steven Pura – Saskatoon Police Service, Guns and Gangs Unit, Gang Expert Defence Father André Poilièvre – STR8 UP Ashley Herbers Dr.

Terry Nicholaichuk II SYNOPSIS OF PREDICATE OFFENCES AND CONVICTIONS [ 7 ] Shortly after 7:00 p.m. on November 12, 2017, police were dispatched to 212 Avenue V South, Saskatoon. The address was a concern to police as it had been the location one week earlier of a suspected gang-related shooting. [ 8 ] Police ascertained that a delivery driver arriving at this address had been accosted by an Indigenous male brandishing a long- barreled gun who had driven up in a red SUV.

An Indigenous female accompanied the male, however, did not possess any weapon. [ 9 ] The male advised the driver that this was a gang war and that they were hijacking his car. He was instructed to drop the keys which he did. However, rather than stealing the car, curiously, the keys were thrown into a snowbank and the two individuals then departed in their own vehicle. Identity of these individuals was a significant trial issue as well as proof of the principal constituents of the offence resulting in Mr. Gamble’s acquittal on the robbery related charges.

[ 10 ] About 20 minutes after the time of the alleged incident, the police gave pursuit to what they believed to be a matching vehicle to their dispatch description travelling on nearby 22 nd Street. The vehicle turned off 22 nd Street and proceeded through residential neighbourhoods without stopping for police. [ 11 ] Speeds reached as high as 69 kph, passing through several stop signs in a residential area containing schools and a playground park.

Roads were noted to be very icy throughout resulting in loss of steering control in the pursued vehicle, posing a hazard for oncoming cars, some of which had to take evasive action to avoid collision. [ 12 ] The chase lasted over five minutes ending when the suspect vehicle drove down a dead-end alley, at which point the driver fled on foot. Three passengers were arrested on scene. A canine track quickly apprehended the driver, Mr. Gamble, hiding under a tree in a nearby yard. [ 13 ] Upon arrest, police located a stun gun on Mr. Gamble’s person.

In the vehicle, police found a knife, hatchet, sawed-off shotgun and ammunition, on and under front and back seats. [ 14 ] Mr. Gamble was found guilty on 18 of 27 charges, eight of which the Crown relies upon for the purposes of this application pursuant to s. 753.01(1) Criminal Code : 1) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did have in his possession a weapon, to wit: a sawed off 28-gauge shotgun, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to

section 88 of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031391, count 1] 2) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan was an occupant in a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a firearm, to wit: a sawed off 28-gauge shotgun, for which he or any other occupant of the motor vehicle was not the holder of an authorization or license to possess the firearm or a registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to section 94(1) (a)(

i) of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031391, count 8] 3) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did possess a loaded prohibited firearm together with readily accessible ammunition capable of being discharged in the said firearm and was not the holder of an authorization or license under which he may possess the said firearm in that place, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031391, count 9] 4) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did have in his possession a weapon, to wit: a stun gun, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to

section 88 of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031392, count 1] 5) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did have in his possession ammunition, to wit: twelve 28-gauge shotgun shells, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to

section 88 of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031392, count 2] 6) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan was an occupant in a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a prohibited weapon, to wit: a stun gun, for which he or any other occupant of the motor vehicle was not the holder of an authorization or license to possess the weapon or a registration certificate for the weapon, contrary to section 94(1) (a)(

i) of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991031392, count 7] 7) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did without reasonable excuse fail to comply with a condition of long term supervision to wit: obey the law and keep the peace, contrary to

section 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991034074, count 1] 8) THAT HE, the said Michael Wayne Gamble, on or about the 12 th day of November, A.D. 2017 at or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan did without reasonable excuse fail to comply with a condition of long term supervision, to wit: not own, possess or have the control of any weapon, as defined in

section 2 of the Criminal Code , except as authorized by your parole officer, contrary to

section 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code . [Info. 991034074, count 2] [ 15 ] The 10 remaining offences for which Mr. Gamble was found guilty include weapons and driving charges which do not meet the criteria for this application and will be subject to sentencing in the ordinary course. III CROWN EVIDENCE ON SENTENCING

Craig Podgursky [ 16 ] Mr. Podgursky is employed with Correctional Services of Canada as a Community Parole Officer at the Saskatoon Parole office. His duties entail supervising offenders who have been conditionally released into the community from federal incarceration, including day parole, statutory release, full parole and Long Term Supervision Orders. [ 17 ] Mr. Podgursky has worked in this capacity since 2008.

Prior to that he held several correctional officer and managerial positions dating back to 1996 at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary and the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon, and National Headquarters in Ottawa. [ 18 ] Although Mr. Podgursky had no direct involvement with Mr. Gamble, he was able to detail the intake and risk management process at the federal correctional facilities. This would amount to the first phase of the case management regimen which the offender would be subject to for the entirety of his or her sentence.

This includes time spent on any conditional release into the community. [ 19 ] Forms of conditional release include day parole, statutory (mandated at two-thirds of the sentence) [4] , full parole and long term supervision in the community. [ 20 ] Inside the institution, the inmate is assessed at intake to determine minimum, medium or maximum security classification.

Consideration such as institutional adjustment, escape risk and public safety, factor into the assessment. [ 21 ] Dangerous offenders would be placed into maximum security but eventually could be transitioned down to minimum over time following programming, whether subject to determinate or indeterminate sentences, if demonstrating a high level of accountability and progress. It is possible, however, to have a dangerous offender on a determinate sentence released on a Long Term Supervision Order without first transitioning down to minimum security, according to Mr.

Podgursky. [ 22 ] Conditional release plans often entail imposition of special conditions to better supervise the offender which could include residency, appropriate affiliation, work and community programming and involvement. [ 23 ] Breach of these conditions, including the commission of any new offences, would mean revocation of release and return to custody.

Re-release would entail determination of risk and re-adjustment of conditions, if necessary, determined by the Parole Board. [ 24 ] Risk assessment in the community involves examination of both dynamic and static factors [5] relating to the offender, similar to placement in a custodial facility initially. Stephanie Boileau [ 25 ] Ms. Boileau is the Manager of Programing at RPC with in excess of 20 years’ experience working for CSC in various capacities. [ 26 ] Ms.

Boileau explained that when an offender enters the federal system, an immediate plan is crafted to guide the inmate through the duration of the sentence. The purpose is to manage the individual’s risk for the earliest possible community release and safe re-integration. [ 27 ] This is known as the Correctional Plan which is a “living” document subject to change throughout as warranted, either up or down, as the case may be. The full case plan follows the offender into the community when on any type of conditional or statutory release.

[ 28 ] Core institutional programming is available to medium and high-risk offenders depending on their ranking on the institution’s “Criminal Risk Index”. The focus of the core programming can be moderate or high intensity depending upon the index score and would be precipitated by a 10 session primer program. All programming is voluntary however, and no inmate can be forced to take part should they choose not to do so. [ 29 ] Although Ms. Boileau had no direct involvement with the accused, when reviewing his risk factors, he would fit into high intensity programming, in her view. Rae-Lynn Wilson [ 30 ] Ms.

Wilson is a Community Parole Officer (CPO) with 21 years’ experience supervising federally sentenced offenders. [ 31 ] Prior to going through intake at the penitentiary, Ms. Wilson completed a Preliminary Assessment Report on the offender – in this case June 27, 2012 for Mr. Gamble as this was his first federal sentence. [ 32 ] She was aware of only one institutional incident regarding Mr. Gamble where he involved his spouse bringing drugs into the Correctional Centre. Megan Wieranga [ 33 ] Ms.

Wieranga is an Institutional Parole Officer with 12 years’ experience whose job entails preparing inmates for release, completing risk assessments, and making recommendations to the Parole Board. [ 34 ] In 2014 – 2015 she was employed at the Bowden Medium Security Institution in Alberta where she had involvement with the accused following his transfer there from Saskatchewan. [ 35 ] She described the accused as quiet and someone who always treated her with respect.

He was also not needy in the sense that he would come with any problems, rather, she often had to seek him out and initiate contact. [ 36 ] During his stay in Bowden, the accused’s Correctional Plan was amended to reflect a downgrade in his “personal and emotional” domain from “high need” to “moderate need”. [ 37 ] During his tenure there, the accused was flagged for two minor and two serious institutional offences involving gang clothing and positive test for THC.

He was also charged criminally for possession of 17.2 grams of marijuana valued at $3,400.00 for which he received 90 days consecutive time to his existing sentence. [ 38 ] The biggest issue in her view was his “deeply entrenched criminal value systems endorsed by his gang” which underpinned his psychological risk assessment that he was a “very high risk to re-offend violently.” [ 39 ] On the positive side, the accused did very well on his education upgrading and programming reflected in his “excellent program report”.

He was described as having a “high motivation to change” demonstrating a continued positive attitude and eagerness to succeed. Significantly, he was offered and successfully completed core programming for violence prevention. Marilyn Dimakos [ 40 ] Ms. Dimakos is a 24 year veteran of CSC, the last 22 being spent as a CPO. In this capacity, she supervised the accused on

his Long Term Supervision Order over a period of 20 months from his statutory release in March, 2015 up to when he re-offended. [ 41 ] Ms. Dimakos described the accused as “polite and respectful”, “willing to take direction” and “quite easy to deal with.” He was noted to be successful in his employment programming and practicum to the extent he was only one of 14 hired out of 50 applicants at L and L Heating Ltd., where he was subsequently employed. [ 42 ] Mr. Gamble was active in AA, sometimes chairing meetings, had disassociated from his gang, played sports and was not involved in substance abuse.

Overall, he was displaying “a very high level of accountability” such that his overall dynamic risk was reduced from “high” to “medium”. [ 43 ] He did have one incident of personal contact with a gang member as well as starting a new female relationship which led to some poor choices, including being in a bar and attending a scene where violence could have occurred. Ms. Dimakos viewed these as lapses in judgement, not significant enough to outweigh his gains. [ 44 ] In

summary, Ms. Dimakos viewed the accused as someone who had exceeded expectations and who she would be prepared to work with again. Tammy Rettger [ 45 ] Ms. Rettger has worked for CSC for the past 25 years in various capacities including 10 years inside institutions.

Currently, she is a CPO who worked with the accused from May to November, 2017 when he was arrested for the predicate offences. [ 46 ] She, too, found the accused “very easy to work with”, describing him as a good communicator who was “pleasant, cooperative, and respectful” and who appeared to be focused on his family. [ 47 ] As a result of the new charges, however, Mr. Gamble’s security rating was reinstituted to “high”. After such positive strides, it was a disappointment to her that he re-offended in this serious manner.

Constable Keleman [ 48 ] Constable Keleman is a Saskatoon Police Service member working in the Gangs and Guns Unit. [ 49 ] Part of his duties entail monitoring the activities of the Indian Posse street gang and accordingly, he is familiar with the accused as a long term, high ranking member of this gang. [ 50 ] Constable Keleman interviewed the accused upon his arrest on the new offences to try and determine his role and version of events. He found Mr. Gamble to be quite distressed over the recent death of his long time friend, Tyler Morin (believed to be gang related). Constable Keleman considered Mr.

Gamble to be of “above average intelligence” and was surprised to see him back in custody as he was doing very well in the community. Constable Steven Pura [ 51 ] Constable Pura is a 16 year member of the Saskatoon Police Service, the past five of which he has been involved in the Gangs and Guns Unit.

He was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on the Saskatchewan Indian Posse street gang origins, structures, customs, rules and rituals, as well as identifiers of the Saskatchewan Indian Posse activities and criminality. [ 52 ] Constable Pura classified the Indian Posse as Saskatoon’s second largest criminal gang numbering approximately 100 – 150

active members. He described this gang as valuing long term loyalty with tougher entry requirements than other gangs. Decisions are made on a hierarchical structured basis with an overriding “council” having final say on important matters such as exiting the gang. It would be “very rare” in his view to get permission to leave without consequences. [ 53 ] The information that Constable Pura has obtained is that the accused is a “higher up” in the gang who would be more involved giving direction to younger “soldiers” or “strikers” rather than doing violence himself.

Confirmation of his status was obtained from intelligence gathering, his mode of dress, and his body tattoos which are significant markers for the gang reflecting rank and criminal involvement deemed significant by the gang. [ 54 ] Constable Pura confirmed that Tyler Morin had been a high-ranking Indian Posse member who was a close friend and associate of the accused. His murder was believed to have been perpetrated by a rival gang member. [ 55 ] All of the information Constable Pura has received as well as a review of his prison files to the date of his evidence indicated that Mr.

Gamble was still active in the Indian Posse. IV COURT ASSESSOR Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe [ 56 ] Dr. Lohrasbe is a forensic psychiatrist called as the Court’s witness to give independent, impartial, expert opinion evidence relating to assessment, risk management, and treatability of violent offenders. [ 57 ] Dr. Lohrasbe has been qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence to various levels of courts on numerous occasions since completing his formal psychiatric education in 1984.

He has been continuously employed since that time as a forensic psychiatrist which is the application of psychiatric knowledge for legal purposes. [ 58 ] Without objection, Dr. Lohrasbe was qualified in this proceeding to provide expert opinion evidence as a forensic psychiatrist in the areas of assessment and treatment of violent offenders, treatability and management of risk for the serious violent offences and the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders. [ 59 ] In preparation for his testimony, Dr.

Lohrasbe had previously been provided a compilation of the institution and psychiatric reports and assessments including the previous report relating to Mr. Gamble’s designation as a dangerous offender. Additionally, he met with Mr. Gamble personally at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary. [ 60 ] From his comprehensive reviews of the existing material and his in-custody interview interaction, Dr. Lohrasbe was able to generate a forensic psychiatric report tendered as Exhibit C-3 in these proceedings. [ 61 ] Dr. Lohrasbe determined that Mr. Gamble had been indoctrinated to gang culture at a very early age.

Lacking stable parental affection and guidance, Mr. Gamble was influenced by his two older brothers, both of whom were involved in gang sub-culture. As a result, he has had a delayed maturity living in a “sealed bubble” of the gang lifestyle, not having to deal with real life responsibilities. The accused was exposed to violence and substance abuse from an early age. By the time he reached 13 he had committed violence related offences with the presiding judge referring to him twice in sentencing as “dangerous”. Dr.

Lohrasbe stated that such a pronouncement was remarkable and unique in his experience regarding a youthful offender upon his very first conviction. [ 62 ] Dr. Lohrasbe explained that we are all, to a degree, hostage to our early childhood development. The basic principle is that those things that happened to you in early development have a deeper and more profound impact upon future actions. [ 63 ] In his opinion, there is a vast difference between starting to use drugs and alcohol at age 25 compared to age 10 or 11 because the brain is not fully developed until age 25, on average.

Also, one gets stunted socially if substance abuse starts at an early age.

[ 64 ] The accused fits this pattern. He struggled early with peers, classmates and authority figures. Evidenced in his ongoing development is the recurring theme Dr. Lohrasbe described as the “toxic trio” of gang membership, weapons and substance abuse. Paradoxically, the accused does not have a lengthy history for violent offending. However, virtually in all of his violent offences that he has been involved with, he has taken a weapon to the scene. Accordingly, the potential for the situation becoming much more lethal is very high in such circumstances. [ 65 ] As to how the accused presents at this time, Dr.

Lohrasbe shared the view of many of the previous assessors, workers and institutional officers, that he appears likeable, motivated and sincere regarding his desire to change and that he has the cognitive ability to do so. Notwithstanding these attributes, however, the issue is whether he is able to follow through. The fact that he is sincere, honest and capable does not mean that he will do so. [ 66 ] He has had long periods of demonstrated compliance and change but ultimately has failed. Worrisome to Dr.

Lohrasbe is that with all of his supports, when the accused was in distress, he chose a very unhealthy option of relapsing criminally with his former gang members. [ 67 ] Of concern however to Dr. Lohrasbe was that Mr. Gamble has never had the benefit of high intensity violence prevention programming. Of all the dangerous offenders and long term offenders he has dealt with, he has never before seen a situation where such programming was not implemented. Without it, in his view, the accused is left in the position where his maximum potential to respond to a treatment program has not been tapped. [ 68 ] Dr.

Lohrasbe was cautious though in his assessment of the accused, stating candidly that he never fully dropped his guard when being interviewed. To a degree, this limits his confidence that he fully understands the accused and his treatability and risk management potential. [ 69 ] From a psychiatric perspective, Dr. Lohrasbe diagnosed the accused with anti-social personality disorder, a condition whereby one has difficulty controlling aggressive outbursts and is irritable, impulsive and reckless with a limited capacity to obey laws of society.

To underscore this, he noted that all of the accused’s offences were not planned and deliberate but rather done in groups and were impulsive and reactive. [ 70 ] Apart from his diagnosis, the more refined question, in his view, is whether the accused is significantly psychopathic. This requires a determination of whether the subject is emotionally impaired or alternatively, behaviourally impaired. [ 71 ] The emotionally impaired reflects deep emotional deficits – core psychopaths who are incapable of understanding another person’s suffering and whose background would not suggest any reason to be psychopathic.

He cited Paul Bernardo as an example. [ 72 ] By comparison, one who is behaviourally impaired comes from a traumatized and deprived background with little or no guidance early in their lives regarding impulse control. Almost inevitably, this declines with age and is more easily treatable than the emotionally impaired subject. Of the two, Dr. Lohrasbe places the accused in this latter category. [ 73 ] Key to achieving success in treatment is sobriety – “if he could magically make sure he never gets high again, his risk would plummet dramatically”. Relapses, he conceded, were anticipated and expected.

Long term control over the offender is critical to supervise and give direction for treatment – the longer the better. In this regard, he has a strong bias against lengthy incarceration which can be destructive, diminishing any gains that have been made. [ 74 ] Ultimately, Dr. Lohrasbe expressed confidence that Mr. Gamble’s risk could be managed, as demonstrated in the following exchange between he and Crown counsel: Q . . . Do you have a reasonable expectation that if Mr. Gamble is released into the community, the community can be protected against him committing a further serious offence? A Yes.

Q Okay. And why do you say that? A Because he's shown progress in the limited treatment programs he's been offered, that he has -- I mean, it's -- I don't know of any case where an offender who has not completed the high-intensity program -- and in this case, it hasn't even been offered -- where you can reasonably conclude that there's no prospects for his rehabilitation.

How can you say that when the most intensive programs available haven't been offered to him? [6] [ 75 ] Following such treatment, the process of cascading down involving gradual reintegration through maintenance and bridge programming could occur, he stated, all dependent upon his ongoing risk assessment. [ 76 ] Dr. Lohrasbe’s viva voce evidence concerning Mr. Gamble’s treatability and risk management is amplified in his written report at pages 28 – 30. He candidly states that when balancing the “encouraging” and “discouraging” prognostic evaluators he could envision “two plausible scenarios”. In the first, Mr.

Gamble finally becomes successful in the community and the second where he once again re-offends in a similar fashion involving intoxication, gangs and weapons. “The dilemma is that neither scenario would be a surprise”. [ 77 ] Dr. Lohrasbe’s concluding

summary states: Based upon my interview with Mr. Gamble and a review of all available information, it is my opinion that as things stand and in the foreseeable future:

a) he is at high risk for future acts of violence;

b) it is likely that he will benefit from a high intensity violent offender program (currently delivered in a “multi-target” format);

c) the issue of gang affiliation is crucial to risk and its management; and

d) at the point he is released into the community, a prolonged period of follow-up is key to ongoing risk reduction and risk management.

e) periodical risk assessments will assist in planning the specifics for ongoing risk management. V DEFENCE EVIDENCE ON SENTENCING Father Andr é Poili èvre [ 78 ] Father Andr é is a well-known and a highly regarded fixture in the legal community. He has worked for many years in the capacity of prison chaplain and in 2001 founded STR8 UP, designed to assist gang members in redirecting their lives away from their criminal lifestyle.

He holds several graduate and post-graduate degrees and is the recipient of the Order of Canada. [ 79 ] Although Father André has been tendered as an expert in previous proceedings, he was called here, not as an expert, but rather to explain the STR8 UP program as well as his personal involvement with the accused. [ 80 ] The STR8 UP program, he explained, has its genesis in the wellness and lifestyle model of the Indigenous medicine wheel. In this respect, STR8 UP focuses on the four pillars of the medicine wheel dealing with healthy body, mind, emotions, and values. It is not a recruiting program he emphasized.

Rather, it is voluntary and requires the subject to initiate the contact and demonstrate a willingness to change. [ 81 ] The conditions for involvement in STR8 UP are:

a) writing a brief autobiography;

b) dropping gang colours;

c) dealing with addictions;

d) working at honesty and humility; and

e) committing to a period of four years. [ 82 ] The overall goals to be achieved are to be a loving parent and partner and to be a responsible citizen. Father André estimates that about one-third of those who attempt to commit make it through successfully. He likens STR8 UP to cancer treatment where one can heal completely, partly, or can fail. [ 83 ] The STR8 UP process, he stated, goes through four phases:

a) decision making – whether to exit the gang lifestyle and commit to change;

b) transition – includes obtaining proper identification, driver’s licence, residence, and treatment programming;

c) transformation – school or training, sobriety and establishing and maintaining family relationships; and

d) stabilization – living a responsible life outside and beyond STR8 UP. [ 84 ] He would place Mr. Gamble, whom he has met on several occasions beginning over 10 years ago, as still being in the decision making phase. He has attended informational circles in jail but to this point has not yet committed to STR8 UP. [ 85 ] Father André’s impression of Mr. Gamble is that he is different, one who has potential and dreams. He has witnessed the personal growth in him since he was 18 or 19. He describes him as kind “with a big heart” and believes he could accomplish a great deal. In his view, Mr.

Gamble has always presented as honest and humble and is not an arrogant man. [ 86 ] In response to questions from the Crown, Father André conceded that gangs are more vicious now than before and that guns appear to have eclipsed knives as the weapons of choice. Further, drug usage and severity has increased dramatically over time, now involving more serious drugs such as crystal meth and fentanyl. He has also noted that gang membership appears to be starting at a much younger age.

In one instance, a youth the age of eight was found wearing a gang bandana. [ 87 ] Further, it is not uncommon to hear of 11 and 12 year olds carrying knives, machetes and even guns. Also, in the school system, Grade 4’s have had to be separated because they are associated with different gangs. The problems, he said, are now multi- generational passing from fathers to sons. [ 88 ] Mr. Gamble, in Father André’s view, is a leader with great potential. The issue is whether he wants to get out of this gang lifestyle or not. Ashley Herbers [ 89 ] Ashley Herbers is the 29 year old girlfriend of Mr.

Gamble and mother to his two children, ages four and five. [ 90 ] Ms. Herbers is currently employed as a full time welder and resides in a house in the Confederation area of Saskatoon with her two children. [ 91 ] She has maintained a relationship with Mr. Gamble while he has been incarcerated and is desirous of continuing to do so upon his eventual release. Although she and the children have never resided with Mr. Gamble, she has taken the children with her on custodial visitations and Mr. Gamble has formed a strong bond with them. [ 92 ] Ms. Herbers speaks of Mr. Gamble in positive and supportive terms.

She would like to see him further his education, trade skills or employment pursuits, while the children are still young so that he can provide more time as they age for their sporting and extra- curricular activities. [ 93 ] Although her long term hope is for a healthy familial relationship with Mr. Gamble, she struck the Court as very pragmatic in her assessment of how that can occur. She is resolute that Mr. Gamble must disassociate permanently from his gang lifestyle and connections as well as maintaining his sobriety.

If he failed in this regard, she would not be hesitant to report him to his parole officer although in her words “I just hope that he wouldn’t put me in that position”.

[ 94 ] Overall, Ms. Herbers presented as an articulate, thoughtful and intelligent witness with a strong moral compass concerning healthy family values. She was not naive to the difficulties going forward and, if need be, would not put Mr. Gamble’s interests above those of her family. In the Court’s view, she would be a very strong support for Mr. Gamble to reintegrate and maintain a positive pro- social lifestyle. Dr. Terry Peter Nicholaichuk [ 95 ] Dr.

Terry Nicholaichuk was tendered by the defence to be qualified and give expert opinion evidence relating to the assessment, treatment and risk management of violent and sexually violent offenders. [ 96 ] Dr. Nicholaichuk has a PhD in clinical psychology with a specialty in risk assessment and treatment. He has extensive work experience dating back to 1992 with the Correctional Services of Canada, the Saskatchewan Hospital, Forensic Unit and the Regional Psychiatric Centre. He has testified in excess of 100 times in provincial and superior courts across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

He has authored and participated extensively in the area of risk management studies, papers and reports, including Correctional Careers of Dangerous Offenders, published in the Canadian Criminal Law Quarterly in January 2013. [ 97 ] In all the circumstances, Dr. Nicholaichuk was qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence in the areas proffered. [ 98 ] As per his engagement protocol, Dr.

Nicholaichuk reviewed Crown disclosure, institutional reports, including the CSC document Reports Of Automated Data Applied To Reintegration (RADAR) providing a global picture of current status, programs completed and institutional charges, expert reports of Dr. Holman (initial assessor in 2011) and Dr. Lohrasbe, as well as meeting personally with Mr. Gamble at the Correctional facility. [ 99 ] Of note, the RADAR report provided independent verification that Mr.

Gamble had left the Indian Posse gang as of March 12, 2021 which included non-association with the gang members and cover-up tattoos over his gang tattoos. [ 100 ] Drs. Lohrasbe and Nicholaichuk were compatible in their opinions that Mr. Gamble could be safely managed in the community. They both believe that lengthy prison sentences are counter-productive to risk management. Where they differed principally was with respect to the need for Mr. Gamble to take further violence risk management programming. Dr. Lohrasbe stated that Mr.

Gamble could benefit from high intensity violence prevention programming which curiously had never been offered to him. Dr. Nicholaichuk is of the opinion that Mr.

Gamble does not require further violence prevention programming, essentially for two reasons One, he has already received programming of this nature while in the Bowden Penitentiary in 2013 and second, he has not been convicted of anything violent since his dangerous offender designation in 2012 [7] , notwithstanding having been found guilty of being in possession of weapons (the predicate offences) in these proceedings. [ 101 ] On this latter point, Dr.

Nicholaichuk stated that this area has been carefully considered and the conclusion reached that for risk assessment purposes, possessing (as opposed to using) weapons is not considered to be a violent offence. [ 102 ] Dr. Nicholaichuk believes the appropriate management plan for Mr. Gamble is a structured return to the community. He is of the view that he has been manageable in the past and done reasonably well under supervision, which is supported by the CSC and community worker evidence in these proceedings.

Significantly, because he has now cut the ties with his gang lifestyle, his chances of success in the community have dramatically improved. In his words “. . . if you want to teach people how to behave better, it always works better if you allow them to develop the skills they require and the opportunity to practice and strengthen those skills in a situation that is as close to possible to the situation in which you expect the person to exhibit those skills.” [8] [ 103 ] Dr.

Nicholaichuk related further that, correspondingly, the longer one is kept in the institutional setting, the more you have increased the chances of relapse upon release “. . . because managing that environment imposes a level of stress over and above trying to learn how to behave better”. [9] VI APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION [ 104 ] The circumstances in which Mr. Gamble now finds himself is that of a previously designated dangerous offender found guilty of committing new offences while subject to community supervision.

This brings him within the ambit of s. 753.01 of the Criminal Code , facing jeopardy of an indeterminate sentence in a federal penitentiary. The threshold for triggering this

section is found in the opening lines of s. 753.01(1) which states: 753.01

(1) If an offender who is found to be a dangerous offender is later convicted of a serious personal injury offence or an offence under subsection 753.3(1) (breach of LTSO) . . . (Text in parentheses added) [ 105 ] Mr.

Gamble was found guilty of both a serious personal injury offence [10] and breach of an LTSO, so met the criteria to then trigger s. 753.01(5) supra at para. 4. [ 106 ] The question then is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence than a period of indeterminate custody will adequately protect the public against the commission of murder or a serious personal injury offence. [ 107 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in Boutilier set out a three-step framework to impose sentencing pursuant to s. 753(4.1), which language, as noted, is mirrored in s. 753.01(5), the basis for the within application.

The Court stated the following at para. 70:

[70] . . . First, if the court is satisfied that a conventional sentence, which may include a period of probation, if available in law, will adequately protect the public against the commission of murder or a serious personal injury offence, then that sentence must be imposed.

If the court is not satisfied that this is the case, then it must proceed to a second assessment and determine whether it is satisfied that a conventional sentence of a minimum of 2 years of imprisonment, followed by a long term supervision order for a period that does not exceed 10 years, will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence. If the answer is “yes”, then that sentence must be imposed.

If the answer is “no”, then the court must proceed to third step and impose a detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period of time. . . . Determinate Sentence [ 108 ] Drs. Lohrasbe and Nicholaichuk agree that any release plan for Mr. Gamble should entail an element of community supervision. In Dr. Lohrasbe’s opinion, such supervision should be for as long as possible. Dr.

Nicholaichuk favours a structured release into the community but did not endorse any specified period for supervision. [ 109 ] Both experts are highly qualified and gave credible and impartial evidence concerning risk assessment and treatment of violent offenders. The Court places significant weight on their opinions that Mr. Gamble cannot be released without adequate long term supervision. This accords with the evidence of his compliance when released previously. Therefore, a conventional determinate sentence would not be appropriate for Mr. Gamble.

Determinate Sentence with Long Term Supervision [ 110 ] The Court then must assess whether there is a reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence with long term supervision attached upon release would “adequately protect the public” to the extent required. [ 111 ] A “reasonable expectation” has been held to mean a likelihood, rather than a possibility. [11] In other words, “will happen” rather than “may happen”. [12] [ 112 ] Mr. Gamble’s criminal record is relevant to this determination. He began accumulating youth criminal justice charges at age 14 in 2004.

Between 2004 and 2008 (when he turned 18) he amassed 32 youth convictions which formed the bulk of his criminal record to date: Carry concealed weapon x 2 Mischief x 2 Break and enter with intent to commit indictable offence x 4 Fail to comply x 10 Possession of weapons x 3 Obstruction x 3 Fail to attend court x 1 Escape lawful custody x 1 Unlawfully at large x 3 Robbery x 1 Assault with a weapon x 2 [ 113 ] As an adult, between 2008 and 2016, he was convicted of the following seven offences: Assault (2008) x 1 Possession weapon (2011) x 1 Aggravated assault (conviction date November 9, 2010 and subsequent dangerous offender designation 2012) x 1 Fail to comply (2012) x 2 Possession of marijuana (2012) x 1 Breach LTSO (2016) x 1 [ 114 ] In 2018, Mr.

Gamble was found guilty of the predicate offences before the Court. [ 115 ] Putting Mr. Gamble’s criminal record into perspective, the majority of his offences occurred as a youth when he was indoctrinated into the gang subculture at a very early age. His adult record is dated and very brief containing one serious conviction for

aggravated assault. His institutional record involves several infractions, some involving possession of weapons, but none for violence. [116] By all accounts from police officers, institutional staff, community workers and the experts, including Father André, Mr.Gamble is described as intelligent, capable and motivated to improve his circumstances. Ms. Dimakos, from Correctional ServicesCanada, who supervised Mr. Gamble on his LTSO described him as “polite and respectful”, “willing to take direction”, “easy to dealwith” and “displaying a high level of accountability”.

He has successfully completed violence and life skills programming, upgraded toGED Grade 12 and gained education and training in the plumbing and heating trade where he was employed prior to coming back intocustody. [117] Most significantly, he has now permanently disassociated himself from the Indian Posse gang which has been independentlyverified by CSC. The significance of this is underscored by the fact that he did so as a “higher up” within the dangerous environment ofthe penal institution, evidencing his intention by covering up his gang tattoos. Both Drs.

Lohrasbe and Nicholaichuk as well as CSCstaff and community workers, stated categorically that his major risk factors are gang subculture, weapons and substance abuse – the“toxic trio” as referred to by Dr. Lohrasbe. The obvious window to these risk factors is gang membership. [118] On all of the evidence before the Court, there is a reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by an LTSO willadequately protect the public against the commission of murder or a serious personal injury offence, and that an indeterminate sentence istherefore not required.

VII SENTENCE [119] The circumstances surrounding Mr. Gamble’s offending before the Court have been set out at paras. 7 – 13 supra. [120] He has been found guilty of 18 offences, eight of which trigger

Part XXIV involving sentencing Mr. Gamble as a dangerousoffender. These offences are listed in para. 14 supra. Sentencing Principles [121] In the recent decision of R v Lonechild[13]Madam Justice MacMillan-Brown set out the sentencing principles in

Part XXIII andPart XXIV of the Criminal Code at paragraphs 179 – 186: 1. Principles of Sentencing [179] In determining a fit sentence, I must take into account the principles of sentencing as set forth in

Part XXIII of the Criminal Codeand, in particular, ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2. The general principles of sentencing can be encapsulated as follows. [180] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and maintenance of a just,peaceful and safe society.

In striving toward that fundamental purpose, I must be guided by such principles as denunciation, deterrence,rehabilitation, reparation and acknowledgment of victim and the community at large. [181] I must also be guided by the principle of proportionality — that the sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I must ensure that the cumulative sentence that I impose upon Mr. Lonechilddoes not exceed his overall culpability.

Any sentence that I impose should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders forsimilar offences committed in similar circumstances. [182] I must consider whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors that should militate for or against a particular sentence and,in addition, consider Mr. Lonechild’s Indigenous heritage in the context of the principles set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in R vGladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688 [Gladue]. [183] That having been said, protection of the public is the paramount consideration when the Court is sentencing an offender within thestatutory realm of

Part XXIV. Indeed, in Boutilier, the Supreme Court describes protection of the public as an “enhanced objective” inthe context of sentencing a dangerous or long-term offender. In that regard, the Supreme Court stated as follows at para. 56: 56 Mr. Boutilier contends that, by referring solely to the objective of public protection, the wording of s. 753(4.1) excludes othersentencing objectives and principles from the sentencing judge's discretion. In my view, a fair reading of s. 753(4.1) does not result in theexclusion of these principles.

Parliament is entitled to decide that protection of the public is an enhanced sentencing objective forindividuals who have been designated as dangerous. This does not mean that this objective operates to the exclusion of all others.It is permissible for Parliament to guide the courts to emphasize certain sentencing principles in certain circumstances withoutcurtailing their ability to look at the whole picture. Emphasis on the public safety component is consistent with the fact thatpublic protection is the general purpose of

Part XXIV of the Code: Steele, at para. 27. Further, because the enhanced objective ofpublic safety parallels the justification for imposing an indeterminate detention, such emphasis is also consistent with the principles ofsentencing generally. [Emphasis added] [184] Similarly, in the Pelly decision, Tholl J.A. stated as follows on behalf of the Court at para. 28: 28 Despite the requirement that the sentencing principles from

Part XXIII of the Criminal Code are to be applied, a judge cannot losesight of the fact that

Part XXIV proceedings are different than conventional sentencing, and their sentencing deliberations must giveparamount consideration to the protection of the public as set out in s. 753(4.1). Protection of the public through the prevention offurther offences has been described in the jurisprudence as the "enhanced objective", "dominant purpose", "paramountsentencing objective", "paramount purpose" and "primary consideration" in the sentencing process under

Part XXIV: Boutilierat paras 55- 56; R v Steele, 2014 SCC 61 at para 29, [2014] 3 SCR 138; R v Standingwater, 2013 SKCA 78 at para 49, [2013] 10 WWR277 [Standingwater]; R v Spilman, 2018 ONCA 551 at para 32, 362 CCC (3d) 415; and R v Warawa, 2011 ABCA 294 at para 38, 278

CCC (3d) 409, leave to appeal to SCC refused, . It is an error of law to allow the factors from

Part XXIII todominate the determination of an appropriate sentence under

Part XXIV: Boutilier at paras 55-57, Standingwater at para 49, R vToutsaint, 2015 SKCA 117 at paras 22-25, [2016] 5 WWR 269 [Toutsaint], and R v Osborne, 2014 MBCA 73 at paras 95-97, [2014] 10WWR 262 [Osborne]. [Emphasis added] [185] Although the Pelly decision arose in the context of the sentencing of a dangerous offender, the Court of Appeal was emphasizingthe paramountcy of public protection in the context of

Part XXIV proceedings as a whole — dangerous and long-term offenders alike.Further, even before Pelly, Saskatchewan courts have stressed the primacy of the principle of public protection in long-term offenderdecisions. By way of example, see Keepness at para 15, and R v Standingwater, 2013 SKCA 78 at para 49, 417 Sask R 158[Standingwater]. [186] Thus, the general principles of sentencing, as enunciated in

Part XXIII, do not fall by the wayside when sentencing a dangerous orlong-term offender. However, the protection of the public is paramount and the principles applied in a conventional sentencing cannotovershadow my analysis. Because I am sentencing Mr. Lonechild within the realm of

Part XXIV, public protection must be at theforefront of my mind. [122] The Court therefore must apply the sentencing regimen of

Part XXIII found at ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Codebearing in mind the overarching principle of

Part XXIV consisting of protection of the public.

Crown Position on Sentence [123] The Crown seeks a global disposition of 8 years less remand credit of 4 years determined on a 1:1 basis, plus appropriateancillary orders determined as follows; 1) s. 95(1) possess loaded prohibited firearm – 5 years 2) s. 117.01(1) possess firearm while prohibited – 1 year consecutive 3) s. 249.1(1) evade police – 1 year consecutive 4) s. 753.3(1) breach LTSO (KP) – 1 year consecutive _______ Total: 8 years [124] The Crown submits that the balance of the remaining offences can go by way of concurrent sentences. [125] The Crown also seeks an LTSO to follow release as well as ancillary orders including weapon forfeiture, DNA order, lifetime s.109 order and a 3 year driving prohibition.

Defence Position [126] The defence argues for a global custodial sentence in the 5 – 6 year range followed by the maximum permissible LTSO assuggested by the Crown upon release from custody. Aggravating Factors [127] There are several aggravating factors: • Mr.

Gamble was operating a motor vehicle while in possession of a loaded prohibited weapon (sawed-off shotgun) as well asother weapons while being prohibited under s. 109 of the Criminal Code; • He fled the police to avoid capture driving dangerously in the process in residential areas of Saskatoon; • He was in the company of gang associates at the time; • He was subject to an LTSO at the time these offences were committed.

Mitigating Factors [128] The Court finds the following to be mitigating: • Of his 32 youth convictions there are only 8 entries for possession of weapons and violence which include carry concealedweapon x 2, possession of weapons x 3, robbery x 1 and assault with weapon x 2; • His adult record for violence stops abruptly in 2012 when he was determined to be a dangerous offender. Of his 7 convictions asan adult, relevant entries include assault (2008) x 1, possession of weapon (2011) x 1, aggravated assault (2012) x 1 and breach of LTSO(2016) x 1;

• None of his previous convictions involve firearms; • He has taken regular programming while in custody to address his risk factors which include upgrading his education, regularly attending AA meetings (sometimes acting as chair), engaging in vocational plumbing training resulting in employment while in the community and has successfully completed Core Programming for Violence Prevention; • CSC and community workers describe him as intelligent, polite, cooperative, easy to deal with and highly motivated to succeed thereby enhancing his opportunities for rehabilitation; • He has terminated his gang membership in the Indian Posse thereby significantly decreasing, if not eliminating, his major risk factors; • His partner, Ashley Herbers, is a strong positive support.

She is the mother of his two children, ages four and five, who reside with her and with whom he has built a strong bond. She intends to continue this relationship and will not tolerate substance abuse or involvement with gang association. Gladue Factors [ 129 ] Several Gladue factors apply to Mr. Gamble as referenced in the expert reports before the Court. He is a member of the Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation, but was raised primarily in Saskatoon from the age of 12. His home life consisted of being subject to abuse and neglect.

He reports sexual and physical abuse as a child. [ 130 ] At an early age, his sister assumed parenting of him when his mother and father were either incapable or unwilling to do so. His two older brothers were associated with gang subculture leading him to be indoctrinated into that lifestyle involving crime, substance abuse and violence. [ 131 ] He began using alcohol and illicit drugs at a very early age. His criminal offending is directly related to his gang involvement which started at age 14 when he was convicted for possessing a concealed weapon.

Section 95(1) Possession of a loaded prohibited weapon [ 132 ] In R v Nur [14] , the Supreme Court of Canada noted the trial judge’s review of the sentencing range for s. 95 offences to be within a range of 3 to 5 years for first time offenders where the use and possession of the gun is associated with criminal activity. In that case, the accused was convicted of possessing a loaded .22 calibre handgun outside a Toronto business.

He had no previous record and was sentenced to 40 months custody which was not disturbed on appeal. [ 133 ] My brother Judge Lang in R v Thompson [15] recently reviewed several other s. 95(1) sentences: R v Charles , 2015 SCC 15 [2015] 1 SCR 773 (7 years – significant record for violence and weapons); R v Brown , 2020 ONSC 6355 (4 years - loaded handgun in vehicle– record included armed robbery and assault with weapon); R v Kachuol , 2017 BCCA 292 (3 years – loaded handgun in vehicle – limited record); R v Guha , 2012 BCCA 423 (4 years – semi-automatic handgun found on his person – first weapons conviction); R v Hiscock , 2020 BCCA 355 (4 years – accused had discharged gun inside residence – moderate record); R v Gamble , 2006 SKCA 46 (3 years – loaded pistol and ammunition on person – significant record of violence and weapons). [ 134 ] In Thompson , the accused was found in a motor vehicle in a residential area in possession of a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition which closely parallels the facts of the present case.

He was sentenced to 5 years on the s. 95(1) offence. Noteworthy is that Mr.

Thompson had a very significant record totalling 101 entries including several violence and weapons convictions. [ 135 ] In R v Johnson , [16] the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 6 years for the s. 95(1) offence noting significantly at para. 56 that the accused “had just finished a lengthy penitentiary sentence for possessing and recklessly discharging a sawed-off .22 calibre gun, injuring a 15 year old boy.” [ 136 ] At the very low end of the range, the Court reviewed the following authorities: R v Noname , 2021 SKPC 46 (9 months followed by 2 years’ probation); R v Mero , 2021 BCCA 399 (CSO imposed on appeal of 2 years less a day); R v Sellars , 2018 BCCA 195 (CSO of 2 years less a day imposed on appeal). [ 137 ] Courts have long recognized that sentencing is a highly individualized process. [17] In the present case, the Court views Mr.

Gamble’s mitigating factors as significantly outweighing the aggravating factors warranting a sentence in the lower end of the range. Principal among these include the limited record for violence, the large gap since his previous violent offending and his termination of his gang involvement. [ 138 ] In all the circumstances, having due regard to the sentencing regime of ss. 718 , 718.1 , and 718.2 as well as

Part XXIV of the Criminal Code regarding the principal concern of protection of the public, the Court determines a fit and proper sentence for this

offender of the s. 95(1) offence to be 40 months custody. S. 117.01(1) Criminal Code - Possess firearm while prohibited S. 753.3(1) Criminal Code - Breach of LTSO [ 139 ] The Crown seeks one year consecutive sentences for possession of the firearm while prohibited pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code [18] and breach of the LTSO. [19] [ 140 ] The Court agrees that these sentences should be served consecutively. However, the Court is concerned with the totality principle overall in achieving a fit and proper sentence for Mr.

Gamble which, for the reasons stated, should fall to the lower end of the range. [ 141 ] The Court recognizes that a shorter sentence may or may not afford Mr. Gamble the opportunity for further violence programming which Dr. Lohrasbe stated he could benefit from. As noted, Dr. Nicholaichuk took the contrary view that no further such programming was necessary. Dr. Nicholaichuk was clear as well that continued institutionalization may well inhibit Mr. Gamble’s rehabilitation prospects and make him more likely to relapse. [ 142 ] Mr.

Gamble has taken extraordinary steps toward reducing his risk factors and has strong positive supports upon his release. The opportunity to become a productive member of the community should be capitalized upon as soon as reasonably possible. [ 143 ] Taking all of these factors into account, the Court determines that the accused should serve the following: s. 117.01(1) Criminal Code – possess a firearm while prohibited (1 count) – 6 months consecutive; s. 753.3(1) Criminal Code – breach of LTSO (1 count) – 12 months consecutive

Section 249.1 Criminal Code – Evade Police [ 144 ] The driving incident whereby Mr. Gamble attempted to evade police lasted several minutes travelling through Saskatoon streets before he came to a stop and fled the vehicle. The manner of driving, although dangerous, was at the lower end factually.

The highest speed achieved was 69 kph and no injuries or loss of property resulted. [ 145 ] In these circumstances, bearing in mind the totality principle, a sentence of 4 months custody is appropriate, to be served consecutive to any other sentence. [20] [ 146 ] As suggested by the Crown, the balance of the offences can be concurrent. The result is that Mr. Gamble will serve 62 months globally less appropriate remand credit, as follows: Information 991031391 (by Indictment on all counts) : Count

Section Description

Part XXIV Sentence 1 88 Possession of a sawed off 28- gauge shotgun for a purpose dangerous Yes 6 months concurrent 4 86(1) Careless transport of a shotgun No 3 months concurrent 5 86(1) Careless transport of shotgun shells No 3 months concurrent 7 91(1) Possess shotgun without license No 6 months concurrent 8 94(1)(a)(

i) Occupant in motor vehicle with unlicensed firearm Yes 6 months concurrent 9 95(1) Possess loaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition Yes 40 months

Information 991031392 (by Indictment on all counts): Count

Section Description

Part XXIV Sentence 1 88 Possession of stun gun for a purpose dangerous Yes 3 months concurrent 2 88 Possession of 28-gauge shotgun shells for a purpose dangerous Yes 3 months concurrent 5 90 Carry concealed weapon – stun gun No 3 months concurrent 6 91(2) Possess prohibited weapon – stun gun No 3 months concurrent 7 94(1)(a)(

i) Occupant in motor vehicle with unlicensed prohibited weapon Yes 3 months concurrent 9 117.01(1) Possess firearm while prohibited (shotgun) No 6 months consecutive 10 117.01(1) Possess prohibited weapon while prohibited (stun gun) No 6 months concurrent 11 117.01(1) Possess ammunition while prohibited No 6 months concurrent 13 249.1(1) Evade police No 4 months consecutive 14 249(1)(

a) Dangerous driving No 4 months concurrent Information 991034074 (Indictable by law at the time): Count

Section Description

Part XXIV Sentence 1 753.3(1) Breach LTSO – fail to obey the law and keep the peace Yes 12 months concurrent 2 753.3(1) Breach LTSO – possess weapon Yes 12 months consecutive Remand Credit [ 147 ] On December 29, 2021 (date of sentencing) Mr. Gamble will have spent 4 years and 48 days in custody (1,509 days). Based on R v Bourdon , [21] followed in Saskatchewan in R v E.W. [22] , because Mr.

Gamble’s LTSO has continued to run while being detained in pre- sentence custody, he shall receive a remand credit on a 1:1 basis. [ 148 ] The Court also considered the defence request for special consideration regarding the remand time spent during the COVID pandemic. However, no adjustment can be considered on this basis as no evidence was presented to warrant same concerning change in institution protocols or impact on Mr. Gamble personally. [23] [ 149 ] In terms of months, Mr. Gamble’s remand credit of 4 years and 48 days rounds to 50 months.

LTSO [ 150 ] Crown and defence are in agreement that an LTSO should attach following Mr. Gamble’s release. He is currently subject to an LTSO which expires February 24, 2026. [ 151 ] The Crown submits that a 5 year LTSO is appropriate following his release to conform with s. 755(2) of the Criminal Code : The periods of long-term supervision to which an offender is subject at any particular time must not total more than 10 years. [ 152 ] This was not opposed by defence counsel.

VIII CONCLUSION [ 153 ] Mr. Gamble is ordered to serve a determinate sentence of 62 months incarceration globally less remand credit of 50 months leaving a further 12 months in total to serve on a go-forward basis. [ 154 ] Upon expiration of this sentence, Mr. Gamble shall be subject to a Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) of 5 years in addition to any LTSO that he is currently subject to. Ancillary Orders [ 155 ] The following ancillary orders shall apply: • lifetime s. 109 order to attach to the s. 95(1) conviction (count #9 on Information ending 391); • Mr.

Gamble shall provide a sample of his DNA in custody pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , if this has not yet been done; • all weapons seized shall be forfeited pursuant to s. 491 of the Criminal Code . [ 156 ] The Court declines to make a driving prohibition order. Mr. Gamble has no previous driving convictions. Further, a driving prohibition would inhibit rehabilitation for educational and employment opportunities. [ 157 ] Where surcharges apply, all are waived. ________________________ R.D. Jackson, J