R. v. Roulette, 2022 MBPC 18

CITATION: R. v. Roulette, 2022 MBPC 18 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) C. Ritchot ) ) for the Crown - and – ) ) ) Roulette, Kyle ) ) P. Smith For the Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision ) Delivered: April 11, 2022 Carlson, P.J. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Kyle Roulette pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house and therein committing the indictable offence of robbery, contrary to s. 348(1) (

d) of the Criminal Code . The offence was committed on June 7, 2020, at 393 Alfred Avenue, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. [ 2 ] This is a sentencing decision. The court must decide what sentence is appropriate for Kyle Roulette for committing this offence. [ 3 ] There is not a joint recommendation as to sentence. [ 4 ] The Crown seeks a sentence equal to 8 years imprisonment. [ 5 ] Defence counsel argues for a sentence equal to no more than 5 years imprisonment. [ 6 ] Mr. Roulette had been in remand custody for 594 days as of February 10, 2022, when sentencing submissions were made.

He has spent another 60 days in custody since then, for a total of 654 days of pre-sentence custody. There is no dispute that he should receive enhanced credit for that time. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 7 ] In the early morning hours of June 7, 2020, the victim, Ms. Lilda Osborne, was at her residence at 393 Alfred Avenue. She heard knocking at the door, and when she asked who was there, a female voice replied “it’s Jocelyn”. Ms. Osborne has a daughter named Jocelyn, so she opened the door. Her daughter was not at the door. Rather, there were three males and a female.

One of the males, Kyle Roulette, was known to Ms. Osborne, and she recognized him. Kyle Roulette pushed his way into the residence and pushed Ms. Osborne out of the way. The others followed. Kyle Roulette was holding a machete. Once inside the residence, Kyle Roulette pushed Ms. Osborne into a bedroom. He slapped her across the face four or five times. He pulled out a shotgun, pointed it directly into her face and threatened that he would kill her and her daughters. While Kyle Roulette forcibly confined Ms. Osborne to the bedroom, the other three ransacked the residence. He told Ms.

Osborne not to look out the windows. Eventually, he put the gun away, but continued to hold the machete the whole time he was confining Ms. Osborne. At some point, Kyle Roulette directed Ms. Osborne to go into the front room and told a co–accused, Waylon Roulette, to come and keep an eye on Ms. Osborne and not to let her out of the room. Waylon Roulette came to watch over her. He was holding a machete, but downward, not pointing up. Kyle Roulette then went and himself ransacked the residence. The group filled up numerous garbage bags with property from the residence. Ms.

Osborne heard Kyle Roulette yell to Waylon Roulette to come and Kyle Roulette said “here’s a cab”. Ms. Osborne heard a honk, looked out the window and saw a Duffy’s taxi and the four accused getting into the taxi, with multiple garbage bags. Ms. Osborne called police. Footage from the taxi camera disclosed an address on Pritchard Avenue, where they got out of the taxi. Police attended to that Pritchard Avenue address and arrested the four accused. At 4:24 a.m., when police gave Kyle Roulette his notice of arrest, police observed that he appeared impaired by alcohol and/or a drug.

He told police he had been taking Xanax bars. [ 8 ] Ms. Osborne identified Kyle Roulette from a photo lineup. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

[ 9 ] A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) dated December 13, 2021, an assessment done by the Manitoba FASD Centre dated May 21, 2010, and a

Summary of Psychological Testing done by Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre on May 12, 2010, were all filed as exhibits at the sentencing hearing. Familial Background [ 10 ] Kyle Roulette is 29 years old. He was born in Winnipeg. He has five full siblings and two half siblings. His twin sister recently passed away due to a drug overdose.

His father passed away about 20 years ago and he had little involvement with his children due to substance abuse and periods of incarceration. [ 11 ] Kyle Roulette’s mother, Carolyne Roulette, provided the author of the PSR with candid and detailed information about her own background. Ms. Roulette advised that she was affected by the alcohol consumption of her mother. Carolyne Roulette advised there was significant substance abuse in her own home when she was young, and her father left the family when she was young. She observed domestic violence toward her mother by her mother’s partner.

Her mother struggled with alcohol. Carolyne Roulette was in Child and Family Services care from a young age and had numerous placements. She advised she was sexually assaulted at six years old by a foster parent. Carolyne Roulette ultimately ended up in an abusive relationship with Kyle Roulette’s father, who regularly assaulted her, had substance addictions and was in and out of custody. Ms. Roulette shared that both her parents attended residential school, and told her how they were treated poorly and her mother was sexually assaulted. Ms.

Roulette also advised that her maternal grandparents attended residential school [ 12 ] Kyle Roulette was placed at birth by his mother with his maternal aunt and uncle on Long Plain First Nation. He lived there until age 9, when he returned to live with his mother, at his grandmother’s house in Winnipeg, where there was substance abuse and physical abuse. Kyle Roulette started getting into fights at school and being bullied. Kyle Roulette says he lived in about 7 different homes with his mother after he was returned to her care. [ 13 ] At age 12, Kyle Roulette started getting in trouble with negative peers.

His home life was chaotic, with drinking and fighting between family members. He told the author of the PSR that “I was scared but then it got to be normal”. [ 14 ] He moved out of his family home at age 18, and into a house with his uncle and cousin. [ 15 ] He is single. He has three children with his ex- girlfriend, who parents the children. He has a close relationship now with his mother. School and employment [ 16 ] Kyle Roulette attended numerous schools, due to his many moves. He was suspended and expelled a number of times for fighting.

He says he found his temper hard to manage, which he links to having witnessed a lot of violence and thinking violent behaviour was normal. He experienced racism in the school system. He attended Yellowquill College for upgrading in 2014 and completed grade 9. [ 17 ] While in custody at Milner Ridge Correctional Centre, he has been working toward his mature student high school diploma. He has a couple of classes left to obtain his grade 12 diploma. [ 18 ] Prior to being incarcerated, he never had gainful employment. At 18, he became eligible for Employment & Income Assistance benefits.

He has been approved for disability status up until age 65 due to his FASD/IQ below 70 diagnosis. While in custody, he has worked as a cleaner, doing recycling and he is now working as a laundry worker. He has an interest in obtaining employment when he is released. Gang Involvement [ 19 ] Around age 12, Kyle Roulette started associating with a street gang. Family members were gang entrenched. Older members introduced him to substances and got him involved in selling drugs and stealing cars to make money. Kyle Roulette experienced rival gang members shooting at some of their homes.

Two of his brothers are currently incarcerated. He has been associated with several gangs. [ 20 ] While in custody, there has been some demonstrated shift to distance himself from gang peers. Custodial staff have confirmed that he has separated from his negative peer group and he has separations from several groups in custody. Custodial staff have also observed that he is encouraging others to separate from negative peers.

Recollection of, and attitude toward, the offence [ 21 ] As to the offence for which he is being sentenced, Kyle Roulette says his memory is blurry because he had consumed Xanax bars and he blacked out. [ 22 ] Kyle Roulette says he regrets his actions. He says he should have never taken drugs or gone to the house. He said he’s trying to change and will participate in programming or counselling. He says he would ask the victim to forgive him to repair the harm. Criminal Record [ 23 ] Kyle Roulette has a related criminal record.

In addition to some breaches and minor property offences, he has a conviction for a break and enter with intent and three assaults with a weapon, as a youth. As an adult, he has a conviction for robbery with a weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and, in 2019, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order and careless use of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to the equivalent of eight months custody. Most recently, in October, 2020 – which was after the offence for which he is now being sentenced -he was sentenced to the equivalent of 31 days for obstructing/resisting a peace officer.

[ 24 ] He is assessed by the author of the PSR as a high risk to re-offend. [ 25 ] At the time of the offence, Kyle Roulette was on two firearms prohibitions (one for ten years and one for life) and a release order with an abstain from alcohol and drugs condition. FASD Diagnosis [ 26 ] Mr. Roulette was diagnosed at age 17 with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) in the diagnostic category of Alcohol Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND).

The assessment discloses he has multiple severe brain domain impairments that include severe verbal comprehension impairment, severe processing speed impairment, attention regulation impairment, borderline academic achievement, impairment in memory and impairment in executive functioning. His adaptive ability falls within the average range. [ 27 ] The psychological testing report indicates his overall level of intellectual functioning to be severely impaired, with an IQ below 70. Variability was found in different areas; for example, he has strength in visual abilities and average perceptual reasoning.

Evidence of significant attention regulatory problems was found, consistent with those suffering from an Attention Deficit Disorder. His testing disclosed difficulty with anger control, trouble concentrating, excitability and impulsivity. Adaptive functioning was found to be average, with no severe deficits. Substance Use [ 28 ] Kyle Roulette reports that he has been drinking beer regularly since age 15. He does not believe he has ever had a problem with alcohol. [ 29 ] As to drugs, by age 13, he was smoking marijuana daily. He has used ecstasy in the past.

He said he uses prescription pills and Xanax, sometimes mixing pills with alcohol. He says substance misuse has become normalized for him. [ 30 ] He did attend AFM for an assessment in 2011 while on probation, but he did not attend follow up appointments. He has done the Coming to Terms program twice while in custody, in 2019, and in 2021. That program addresses substance misuse. In 2021, he completed the Thinking Awareness Group while in custody. The goal is to complete the relapse prevention program. He did well in the program. Use of supports in the community [ 31 ] Due to Mr.

Roulette’s FASD diagnosis and IQ below 70, he qualified for adult services supports in the community. He was identified as a vulnerable person. In 2012, Community Living Disability Services (CLDS) referred him to Turning Leaf. His engagement with Turing Leaf is described as “sporadic” and a representative described that his “street life” would take priority. His last contact with Turning Leaf was while he has been in custody, on March 19, 2021. Turning Leaf offers him support both in and out of custody. He expressed willingness to the author of the PSR to work with Turning Leaf.

Behaviour in custody [ 32 ] Kyle Roulette has had some institutional charges for in custody behavioural issues, from early to mid 2021. His current custody case manager indicated his behaviour is positive and he is involved in programming and working as a trustee. That case manager said Mr. Roulette has a desire to leave his previous lifestyle. She describes him as “a misguided kid who has grown up”. Another corrections officer advised that he is a hard worker, that he is pulling away from negative peers and that Mr. Roulette has shown changes in his attitude.

Connection to culture [ 33 ] Kyle Roulette identifies as an Indigenous person. He has an interest in his culture, and is interested in learning more. His mother took her children to cultural activities when they were younger. Mr. Roulette is interested in leaning to speak Ojibway. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES, OBJECTIVES AND FACTORS Proportionality [ 34 ] It is a fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 719.1 of the Criminal Code ). Seriousness of the offence [ 35 ] This was a home invasion robbery.

It is a very serious offence. Kyle Roulette had weapons visible to the victim, including a firearm that he pointed at the victim’s face. He perpetrated actual violence. He made threats. The seriousness of the offence is underscored by the fact it is an indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. Moral blameworthiness [ 36 ] Mr. Roulette has a diagnosis of FASD. He has Gladue factors. Both of these are put forward by defence counsel as aspects that reduce his moral blameworthiness for the home invasion robbery he committed. In Mr.

Roulette’s case, it is clear, based on the information provided by his mother to the author of the PSR, that the intergenerational impact of colonization impacted her, and in turn, impacted Mr. Roulette in many ways. His diagnosis of FASD is one of those ways. So in Mr. Roulette’s case, Gladue factors that

impacted his mother are intertwined with his own FASD diagnosis. But his FASD and the way that Gladue factors have impacted himhave to be analyzed separately from each other to determine if either or both have the required nexus to the offence he is being sentencedfor, in order to reduce his moral blameworthiness, and if so, to what extent.

Kyle Roulette’s FASD diagnosis [37] The Manitoba Court of Appeal has repeatedly made it clear that there must be a nexus, or connection, between an offender’sFASD diagnosis and the offence for which he is being sentenced in order that such diagnosis impact moral blameworthiness (R. v.Friesen, 2016 MBCA 50; R. v. Okemow, 2017 MBCA 59; and R. v. J.E.D., 2018 MBCA 123). An FASD diagnosis, in and of itself, doesnot necessarily, and does not always, mean an offender necessarily has reduced moral blameworthiness for a particular offence.

As withall aspects of sentencing, an individualized analysis has to take place. [38] J.A. Mainella in Okemow, at para. 73, set out an approach to be used to determine if the required nexus exists: 1. Is there cogent evidence that the offender suffers from a recognized mental illness or some other cognitive limitation? 2. Is there evidence as to the nature and severity of the offender’s mental circumstances such that an informed decision can be madeas to the relationship, if any, between those circumstances and the criminal conduct? 3.

Assuming the record is adequate, the sentencing judge must decide the offender’s degree of responsibility for the offence takinginto account whether and, if so, to what degree his or her mental illness or cognitive limitation played a role in the criminal conduct. [39] In this case, the court does have the required information, referenced in the approach set out in Okemow. That information iscontained in the assessments before the court. The court must address the third step of the Okemow approach. [40] While Mr.

Roulette’s diagnosis includes that he has problems controlling impulsivity, there is no evidence to support this wasan impulsive crime, or that any of his actions during commission of the crime were impulsive. Instead, the evidence supports that Mr.Roulette deliberately went to the specific residence because he had a connection with someone who lived there; that he led the group intothe residence and took control right away – taking the victim into a room, giving her orders and making threats to gain compliance;directing others as to what to do; arranging the taxi ride; and then going to a place he deemed safe.

The evidence supports that KyleRoulette was the ringleader of this planned and targeted home invasion robbery. [41] The diagnosis indicates severe deficits in his overall intellectual functioning, that he has trouble concentrating and has memorychallenges. No severe deficits were found in adaptive functioning. There is no evidence that Mr. Roulette’s cognitive challengesimpacted his planning or carrying out of this offence. [42] Further, the evidence is that Kyle Roulette appreciates his acts were morally wrong. He told the police right away that heregretted his actions and wanted to apologize to the victim.

The evidence also establishes the causal link in his own mind between thepunishment and his crime. The PSR indicates he understands the seriousness of his offence by the time he has already spent in custody. This suggests that the limitations Kyle Roulette has due to FASD, and his cognitive challenges, do not prevent deterrence anddenunciation from being achievable by sentencing. These are important considerations in deciding if there is a nexus (J.E.D. at para. 72,referring to R. v.

Ramsay, 2012 ABCA 257). [43] Overall, in my view, Kyle Roulette’s FASD diagnosis does not have the required nexus to significantly reduce his moralblameworthiness for this crime. Gladue Considerations [44] The court is able to, and does, take judicial notice of the well recognized systemic factors that have impacted Indigenouspeoples, including colonization, displacement and the residential school system. Indeed, the PSR sets out a number of ways in whichthese factors specifically have impacted Mr.

Roulette’s family members, and how those things – including witnessing domestic violenceand substance abuse to the point that they became normalized for Mr. Roulette; moving many times in childhood and a lack of stabilityand pro social role modelling; lack of regular schooling; lack of employment; and substance abuse, have impacted Mr. Roulette, and areconnected to the commission of this offence. Mr. Roulette was admittedly intoxicated by drugs at the time, having little memory of theoffence. [45] The PSR provided information not just specifically about Kyle Roulette, but also about his mother Carolyne Roulette.

Theinformation she provides about her parents and how she grew up, and then the information provided by her and by Kyle Roulette aboutKyle Roulette’s growing up, underscores the intergenerational effect of the legacy of residential schools and related aspects ofcolonialism.

It should really not come as any surprise that Kyle Roulette has normalized violence, group violence, and substance abuse,and has been committing serious offences when under the influence of substances. [46] Overall, in my view, while Kyle Roulette’s moral blameworthiness is not significantly reduced by his FASD diagnosis, hisGladue factors do reduce his moral blameworthiness. It is easy to see the link between how Kyle Roulette’s familial background wasshaped by colonialism, and trickled down to impact him. It is perhaps not a surprise that Mr.

Roulette was with negative peers, under theinfluence of substances, and used violence to get what he was after. [47] In considering the extent to which Gladue factors impact his moral blameworthiness, it is important to note the comment, atpara 79 of R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688, that “generally the more violent and serious the offence, the morelikely it is as a practical reality that the terms of imprisonment for Aboriginals and non Aboriginals, will be close to each other or thesame, even taking into account their different concepts of sentencing”.

When at issue is a very serious offence, as here, although moralblameworthiness is reduced, the balance required to achieve proportionality has to weigh more heavily on the seriousness of the offence.

[ 48 ] So, while Gladue considerations will reduce Kyle Roulette’s sentence somewhat, given the serious nature of the offence, the gravity of the offence carries greater weight in coming to a sentence that is proportionate. SENTENCING PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES [ 49 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions.

Section 718 sets out objectives a sentencing judge must consider. The objectives include: • Denouncing unlawful conduct; • Deterring an offender and others from committing offences; • Separating an offender from society where necessary; • Assisting in rehabilitating the offender; • Reparation to victims and the community; and • Promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledging the harm done to the victims and the community. [ 50 ] In this case, the paramount sentencing objectives are denunciation, deterrence and separating Mr. Roulette from society.

The public needs to be protected from Kyle Roulette. At the time of the offence, Kyle Roulette had specialized supports available to him in the community. The availability of those supports did not prevent or lessen the severity of Mr. Roulette’s offending. The actions of Mr. Roulette and his co accused are the worst nightmare of every law abiding citizen.

Someone vulnerable in their own residence, in the middle of the night, where they are entitled to feel safe and secure, is terrorized by a group of people who forcibly enter into that residence, armed with weapons, and in particular a firearm, which one would reasonably assume is loaded and capable of killing. Society needs to see that people who commit such crimes will be severely dealt with and will be in jail for a long time. As to rehabilitation, it is to Mr.

Roulette’s credit that he seems to have made some good progress recently in custody – in terms of education, gaining some insight and distancing himself from negative peers. Those are very positive steps. Continuation of those efforts, with supervision and support, will have to be taken in a penitentiary for the immediate future. It is hoped that Mr. Roulette will utilize the resources available to him in the community when he is released. MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS [ 51 ]

Section 718.2 (

a) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence must be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors of the offence or the offender. [ 52 ] There are a few mitigating factors. • Mr. Roulette pleaded guilty. That means that Ms. Osborne did not have to come to court and testify. To do so would surely have been traumatic for her. Mr. Roulette has spared her that. A guilty plea is also an acceptance of responsibility. • Mr. Roulette expressed remorse for his actions. • He is still relatively youthful.

He has time to turn things around if he chooses to do so. • The Gladue factors I have already referred to. • His FASD diagnosis may still be mitigating to some degree, even though it does not significantly reduce his moral blameworthiness in this case. • Mr. Roulette has spent his pre sentence time in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic, and COVID concerns will no doubt linger through some, if not all, of his remaining sentence. Though no information was provided as to how Mr.

Roulette was specifically impacted by this, the court can take judicial notice of the fact there were lockdowns and reduced time permitted out of cells, limited access to visitors, limited programming, and limited physical activity. Of course, inmates also can be taken to have had stress about potential infection, given their lack of control over their movements and interactions in a congregate living institution.

These considerations, while they cannot increase the amount of credit enhancement given for pre sentence custody, in my view, must be taken into account as mitigating. [ 53 ] There are many aggravating factors: • The aggravating features set out in s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code , making the offence a home invasion, were present. • Mr. Roulette has a related criminal record, including for offences of violence and with a firearm. • There was some planning of this offence. • The location seemed to be targeted based on some connection Mr.

Roulette had with one of the victim’s daughters. • This was a group ambush – four intruders entered the victim’s home and ransacked it. • It was in the middle of the night when it could reasonably be assumed someone would be at home in the residence.

• Actual violence was used. Mr. Roulette slapped the victim across the face multiple times. • A weapon, the machete, was shown to the victim throughout. • A firearm was taken out and pointed at the victim’s face. • While the firearm was pointing at the victim, threats to kill her and her daughters were made. • Mr. Roulette forcibly confined the victim. • He was the ringleader.

He entered the residence first, directed others, and directed when and how they left the residence. • While there is no formal victim impact statement, the court can take judicial notice of the fact such an incident would be terrifying for the victim. • It is reasonable to assume the victim thought the firearm was loaded and that he could carry out his threat to kill her and her daughters. • Mr. Roulette was on two firearms prohibitions and a release order at the time of the offence. THE “RANGE” OF SENTENCE FOR A HOME INVASION ROBBERY [ 54 ] This was a home invasion robbery as defined in R. v.

Matwiy 1996 ABCA 63 . [ 55 ] The Manitoba Court of Appeal has confirmed a starting point for sentences for serious home invasions at seven to 10 years incarceration ( R. v. Pakoo 2004 MBCA 157 ; R. v. Reader 2008 MBCA 42 ). This range applies to mature individuals with no prior record in most cases. [ 56 ] The circumstances of each case must still be considered in deciding if they fit within the suggested range ( R. v. McGowan 2010 MBCA 45 ).

An appropriate sentence may be a departure from the low end of the range, or there may be aggravating features that raise an appropriate sentence to one above the higher end of the range. CONSIDERATION OF PARITY [ 57 ]

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is the principle of parity. [ 58 ] There were three other perpetrators who were charged as a result of this incident. [ 59 ] Crown counsel advised that the female accused was dealt with differently so was not sentenced. She was not identified by the victim. [ 60 ] Another of the co-accused is at warrant status and has not dealt with his charges from this incident. [ 61 ] The other co-accused is Waylon Roulette.

Defence counsel referred the court to the transcript of Waylon Roulette’s sentencing decision given by Judge Cornick on November 25, 2021. Waylon Roulette was sentenced to the equivalent of 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to break enter and commit robbery – the same offence as pleaded to by Kyle Roulette. Waylon Roulette has a FASD diagnosis and Gladue factors. Waylon Roulette’s involvement in this offence was very different, and significantly less egregious than Kyle Roulette’s. Kyle Roulette was the one directing the home invasion robbery, and in fact, directing Waylon Roulette what to do.

Waylon Roulette was a follower, following what Kyle Roulette told him to do. Though Waylon Roulette held a machete, it was always pointed downwards. Waylon Roulette did not make any threats to the victim. Waylon Roulette did not use any actual violence toward the victim.

Of great significance, as set out in Judge Cornick’s decision sentencing Waylon Roulette, is that it was a fact accepted by the Crown at Waylon Roulette’s sentencing that Waylon Roulette did not know that Kyle Roulette was in possession of a firearm during the offence. [ 62 ] While there are similarities in certain personal circumstances of Waylon Roulette and Kyle Roulette, and while both individuals contributed to the terror and intimidation the victim must have felt during the invasion and robbery of her home, the distinctions in the involvement of each of these individuals in the offence make it clear that a proportionate sentence for Kyle Roulette must be a significantly higher one than the sentence imposed on Waylon Roulette.

Kyle Roulette’s involvement was greater, more threatening to the safety of the victim, and more egregious than that of Waylon Roulette. RESTRAINT [ 63 ] Subsections 718.2(

d) and (

e) respectfully of the Criminal Code provide that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances and that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. The seriousness of this offence, and the need to protect the public from Kyle Roulette, make any sentence other than a significant sentence of imprisonment, unreasonable and inappropriate. DECISION

[ 64 ] In balancing the facts of the offence, and the specific circumstances of Kyle Roulette, with the fundamental purpose of sentencing, relevant sentencing principles and objectives, as underscored by the overarching requirement that the sentence be a proportionate one, and considering the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s approach to sentencing for home invasion robberies, I find that a sentence equal to seven years imprisonment is the fit and just sentence for Kyle Roulette.

But for Kyle Roulette’s moral blameworthiness being reduced, mostly due to his Gladue factors, an appropriate sentence would be well into the range confirmed by Pakoo . The offence here is extremely serious, and there are significant aggravating factors including the presence and threatened use of a firearm. A sentence less than seven years, in my view, would fail to adequately address denunciation, deterrence and most importantly, protection of the public. [ 65 ] Kyle Roulette has been in custody prior to sentencing, for 654 actual days.

He will receive enhanced credit, as permitted by s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code . That is a credit of 981 days. That time will be noted, and the sentence going forward is 1,574 days. That is equivalent to about 4 years, 3.5 months, but the exact sentence is 1,574 days going forward. [ 66 ] There are several ancillary orders, as follows: 1. The offence is a primary designated offence pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code . Mr. Roulette is to have a DNA sample taken in custody. 2. Given that Mr.

Roulette has had two prior weapons prohibitions, that he was subject to at the time of this offence, and the seriousness of this offence, including the use of a firearm, Mr. Roulette is subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code . 3. There is an order of forfeiture as to all items seized by police when Kyle Roulette was arrested. 4. Costs and surcharge are waived pursuant to s. 737 (2.1) of the Criminal Code as such an order would cause undue hardship to Kyle Roulette. “Original signed by” Carlson, P.J.