R. v. Jallim, 2021 ONCJ 166

CITATION: R. v. Jallim , 2021 ONCJ 166 March 16, 2021 Information No. 2811 998 19 38883 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. ANTHONY JALLIM R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. WAKEFIELD On March 16, 2021 at Oshawa, Ontario APPEARANCES : S. O’Neill Counsel for the Provincial Crown B. Scott Counsel for Anthony Jallim R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E WAKEFIELD, J. (Orally): I read that Stirpe Stones report with a great deal of interest. I also share crown and defence views that there is no reason for you to come back to a place like this.

You have too much into your future, too much responsibility now on your shoulders with a young child and a relationship that hopefully will be the foundation for the future of your life. I applaud you for taking responsibility as early as you did. This has been forecast from a very early time during the series of pretrials. It’s not everybody that has the courage to stand forward, take responsibility for an offence like this, especially at your age, for an offence that I think occurred roughly eight months after your 18 th birthday.

But the reality is you had passed your 18 th birthday and you are treated and sentenced as an adult. I agree with the crown that in the spectrum of sentences for the armed robbery invasion of a residence, this is at a low end, but I also agree with the crown that it is a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence but the circumstances of you as an individual who committed that offence. You are very young to go into this particular type of institution. I just wish you good luck there, that you have the courage to get through those years.

I trust that you have a successful early parole hearing, and focus on your future because there is a bright future in front of you once you get this behind you. MR. JALLIM: Yeah.

THE COURT: Do you agree with that? Do you understand that? MR. JALLIM: Yeah. THE COURT: On that basis, is the anticipation four years concurrent on each count? MR. O’NEILL: That’s my understanding unless Mr. Scott has a different understanding. MR. SCOTT: I do not have a different understanding, Your Honour. THE COURT: So there will be a sentence imposed of four years incarceration concurrent on each count. I am waiving the victim surcharges. You are going to be unable to pay them for quite some time, and then you’ve got to reestablish yourself and build back in the community.

I would much rather you focus on that. There will be an order that you provide a sample of your DNA. It is virtually mandatory, given the nature of these charges. Additionally, you are now subject to a weapons prohibition order for a period of 10 years pursuant to

Section 109 of the Criminal Code . As such, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, explosive substance for a period beginning today and ending 10 years after your release from imprisonment and you are further prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life. Do you understand that order? MR. JALLIM: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you promise to obey that? MR. JALLIM: Yes. THE COURT: The crown will provide Madam Clerk, I suspect, the 490 order? That is on consent, Mr. Scott?

There is nothing that needs to be returned? MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour. THE COURT: Yes, it is on consent but nothing to be returned? MR. SCOTT: I know of no property that belongs to Mr. Jallim that needs to be returned, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you. And I agree with the crown that it is probably somewhat superfluous but, if only for the emotional well- being of the victims, there will be an order pursuant to 743.21 that you have no contact with – and the names of the victims here again? MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I can assist.

The people that were present that day were Faizan Shahid, Azan Shahid, Austin Stewart, Nicholas Debets, and Joseph Gladwin. Those are the names that were incorporated in Mr. Jallim’s letter of apology. THE COURT: All right, and I am looking at the Paragraph 7 of the agreed statement of facts. Is Azam Shahid the same person as Azan? In other words, the first name ends with an N as in Norman for one, and M as in Mary for the other. Or are they two separate people? MR. O’NEILL: It’s likely a typo, Your Honour. I think it’s Azan, A-Z-A-N. THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

And is Joseph the last name of Gladwin Joseph, or the other way around? MR. SCOTT: I thought I had Joseph Gladwin, Your Honour, unless Mr. O’Neill corrects me. THE COURT: The agreed set of facts has it the other way around. MR. SCOTT: Well, then I stand corrected, Your Honour. I’ll defer to the agreed- either way, Your Honour, Mr. Jallim will keep away from that person. THE COURT: All right, and should we include Laiba Shahid as well, who was upstairs hiding? MR. O’NEILL: Yes, please. MR. SCOTT: Certainly, Your Honour THE COURT: And that’s L-A-I-B-A S-H-A-H-I-D.

So you are not to communicate with any of those people while you are serving your sentence; do you understand that? MR. JALLIM: Yes. THE COURT: I don’t expect you are going to anyway but, as I said, if only for the emotional comfort of the victims here. I think that covers off all the elements of the sentence. Anything further from the crown? MR. O’NEILL: Just to withdraw the remaining counts. THE COURT: Withdrawn at the request of the crown. Anything further from Mr. Scott?

MR. SCOTT: Only, Your Honour, that the assessment and the letter of apology be sent to the jail with the warrant of committal please. THE COURT: Which I have already ordered has to be done with that agreed statement. MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Sir, good luck. Like I said, I think you have the ability to get through the next little while... MR. JALLIM: Yeah. THE COURT: ...and then rebuild. You’ve got support of your family, you’ve got responsibilities. I trust I will not see you here again. Good luck, sir. You are under sentence. MR. JALLIM: Yeah. *******************