R. v. Goodridge, 2022 ONCJ 139

CITATION: R. v. Goodridge , 2022 ONCJ 139 DATE: January 14, 2022 Information No. 0411-998-20-5717 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E DELIVERED REMOTELY BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. DUMEL on January 14, 2022, for an OTTAWA, Ontario, proceeding APPEARANCES : B. Bencze and M. Jones Counsel for the Crown M. Spratt Counsel for Miykael Goodridge T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S REASONS FOR SENTENCE Introduction 2 Offences 2 Position of the parties 3 Defence 3 Crown 4 Offender 6 Caselaw 9 R. v. Morris 14 Conditional Sentence 20

Pre-Sentence Credit 27 Fit Sentence 29 FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2022 DUMEL J. (Orally): Introduction [ 1 ] On March 2, 2021, I found Mr. Goodridge guilty of trafficking crack cocaine and offences related to his possession of a loaded firearm including a breach of a firearm prohibition. The matter was adjourned several times for the preparation of a pre-sentence report and an enhanced pre-sentence report. I have heard submissions from counsel, including submissions after the Ontario Court of Appeal released its reasons in the R. v.

Morris [i] matter. [ 2 ] I find that a sentence of 2 years less a day followed by 3 years of probation is the appropriate sentence in this case. Offences [ 3 ] On November 3, 2019, Mr. Goodridge sold $60 worth of crack cocaine to Detective F. Zouroudis. He was arrested two months later, on January 17, 2020. The arresting officer seized a loaded handgun with five rounds of ammunition, $242, 27 oxycodone pills, and two cell phones. [ 4 ] At trial, Mr. Goodridge admitted the Crown’s case and sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that he was entrapped by police.

I dismissed the application and found him guilty of all counts except count 12. Count 6 is stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle. Position of the parties Defence [ 5 ] Mr. Spratt argues the appropriate sentence in this case is one of 2 years less a day to be served in the community, followed by a lengthy period of probation. He seeks Summers credit for 83 days spent in pre-sentence custody and Downes credit for 184 days spent on house arrest. He also seeks Duncan credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody during the pandemic. [ 6 ] He argues that Mr.

Goodridge was very compliant while on bail and has had no allegations of breach. Mr. Spratt concedes that the charges of which Mr. Goodridge was found guilty are very serious, such that specific and general deterrence are important considerations. However, restraint and rehabilitation should also come into play, given that Mr. Goodridge is a young man with a lot of potential who was involved in trafficking because he was living in difficult financial circumstances. Mr. Spratt urges me not to impose a sentence that would crush Mr. Goodridge and put him in a hopeless position. Mr.

Goodridge has demonstrated that he can comply with conditions such that Mr. Spratt also urges me to consider allowing Mr. Goodridge to serve his sentence in the community. [ 7 ] Mr. Spratt argues that the Morris decision offers guidance to sentencing judges on how to use social context evidence and evidence of anti-Black racism. Mr. Spratt argues that a 2-year sentence is available with a proper balancing of the various sentencing principles. Mr. Spratt emphasizes that Mr. Goodridge’s situation is very different from Mr. Morris because the Court of Appeal disagreed that Mr. Morris took responsibility. Mr.

Morris accused officers of planting the firearm and he was found to give false evidence. The Court also adverted to the fact that Mr. Morris was in custody on other charges at the time of sentencing. Unlike Mr. Morris, Mr. Goodridge has accepted responsibility and has been on bail for the better part of 2 years with no issues. Crown [ 8 ] Mr. Bencze argues the appropriate sentence is one of 3 years less Downes and Summers credit.

His position is that the proposed sentence is at the low end of the range for the nature of the offence and that the Crown position considers the enhanced PSR, the mitigating and aggravating factors. [ 9 ] Mr. Bencze’s position is that pre-sentence custody of 4 months for Summers credit and 2 months for Downes credit is appropriate. With respect to the defence submission for Duncan credit, he argues that much of Mr. Goodridge’s time in custody predates the Covid pandemic and that he should only receive the usual Summers credit for his pre-sentence custody. [ 10 ] Mr.

Bencze argues that the circumstances of this case call for a penitentiary sentence because of the serious nature of the offences and the aggravating factors that include the nature of the substance, possession of a firearm while subject of a weapons prohibition and the fact that Mr. Goodridge was on probation at the time. Mr. Bencze adds that the nature of the offending and the

seriousness should cause concerns for the safety of the community, and the need for deterrence and denunciation preclude a conditional sentence. He also argues that pre-sentence custody can’t be used to reduce a sentence and bring it into a conditional sentence range and that the conviction for breaching a weapons prohibition should attract a consecutive sentence. [ 11 ] Mr. Bencze points out that in the Morris decision, the Court of Appeal increased Mr. Morris’s sentence to 2 years. Mr. Morris did not have the loaded handgun for a criminal purpose and had no prior record. On the other hand, Mr.

Goodridge was not a first-time offender, was on probation, and subject to a weapons prohibition. According to Mr. Bencze, these distinctions make the 3-year sentence an appropriate one. Offender [ 12 ] From the pre-sentence report and the enhanced pre-sentence report, I learned that Mr. Goodridge is a 23-year-old black man and the son of Ms. Hermoine Goodridge and Mr. Gerald Bennett. He is the youngest of the two children that Ms. Goodridge and Mr. Bennett share. He lived with both his parents in Toronto and moved to Ottawa with his mom after his parents separated. Mr.

Goodridge was raised primarily by his mother; at times they lived with his maternal grandparents and Mr. Goodridge witnessed conflict between his mother and grandparents, which threatened their housing stability and forced Ms. Goodridge to have to make other living arrangements, including living in a shelter on a few occasions. Ms. Goodridge was eventually offered housing in the Ritchie Street community, a priority neighbourhood known to have a high crime rate. Ms. Goodridge describes the current neighbourhood they live in to be like Ritchie. [ 13 ] As a youth, Mr. Goodridge participated in soccer and basketball.

He disclosed to the writer of the enhanced pre- sentence report that he found his father’s absence difficult, especially with respect to receiving guidance and direction from a male figure. [ 14 ] Mr. Goodridge’s experience in the school system, where he was identified as a troublemaker, was plagued with multiple suspensions. School officials went as far as suggesting that he be medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder without a diagnosis. In high school, he was penalized less often. [ 15 ] Sometime in 2007, fearing yet another suspension from school, he disclosed that his mother used corporal punishment.

The CAS opened an investigation, and he was removed from his mother’s care. He witnessed his mother being wrestled to the ground by two police officers present to assist the CAS workers. He was placed in foster care for 3 months, during which he had supervised visits with his mom. Both Mr. Goodridge and his mother found this difficult. In addition to this removal in 2007, there were additional investigations of their family between 2009 and 2012 when the file was closed. [ 16 ] At the time of the offence in November of 2019, Mr.

Goodridge was 21 years old and had limited involvement with the criminal justice system. He was granted a conditional discharge and probation for a mischief and an assault cause bodily harm in September 2019 and was on a youth probation in 2016. [ 17 ] Ms. Goodridge is supportive of her son and has been in court with him at every appearance. He appears to enjoy a loving and supportive relationship with his father, Mr. Bennett, although he sees him rarely. This appears to be due mostly to the fact that Mr. Bennett lives in Toronto. Mr.

Bennett, who is a licenced electrician and has helped financially throughout the years, has made clear that he is prepared to take his son under his wing as an apprentice, to teach him the trade and to pay for college tuition and support him financially while he attends college. Mr. Bennett is also prepared to assist Mr. Goodridge with improving his literacy and math skills by paying for a literacy program like Kumon if needed. [ 18 ] Mr. Goodridge describes the community he lives in as a high drug activity area with a heavy police presence.

His mother revealed that she moved to Ottawa with her children to alleviate some of her hardship as a single parent. At times, she was forced to live in a shelter with her children. Ms. Goodridge received social assistance at different periods and at times had difficulty managing her daily living costs. There was a time when they lived in an apartment, for which she paid $1,000 month, that had cockroaches and rats. Ms. Goodridge worked in restaurants and grocery stores to generate income and provide for her children. Eventually she studied reflexology and now works in that field.

She was content being able to provide the basics for her children. Mr. Goodridge was aware of the family’s financial challenges and felt compelled to contribute financially. He wants to relocate his family to get away from the negative environment of their neighbourhood but has been unable to do so because of the financial constraints. [ 19 ] Mr.

Goodridge has had negative experiences with police officers that have left him feeling profiled and treated unfairly, such as the time he was banned by the police from attending a particular area because he was suspicious looking, even though he was not involved in anything illegal. Ms. Goodridge believes that her son has been labelled a troublemaker from a young age. She shared the example of the police coming to her home when Mr. Goodridge was in elementary school because of an incident at school. [ 20 ] Mr.

Goodridge was introduced to drug trafficking through his friends and his neighbourhood where there is a high demand for drugs. His intention was to sell drugs for a short period of time believing that with the money earned from drug trafficking, he could attend school without incurring debt and move his family out of the priority neighbourhood. He chose to have a firearm because he felt threatened and worried about his and his family’s safety. He acknowledges that guns are dangerous and that he was hasty in making the decision to carry one.

Caselaw [ 21 ] There is no question that firearm and drug offences such as the ones in question are very serious. Mr. Goodridge’s possession of the firearm in this case sits at the true crime end of the spectrum and sentences for these offences must emphasize denunciation and deterrence. See for example R. v. Marshall , 2015 ONCA 692 at para. 49 , and R. v. Mohiadin , 2021 ONCA 122 at

para. 12 . [ 22 ] The Crown has provided several cases in support of a 3-year sentence. The principles in those cases are relevant. I note, however, that most of the cases pre-date the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Morris which provides sentencing judges with guidance on how to deal with social context evidence when sentencing black offenders. Furthermore, there are many aggravating factors in the decisions relied on by the Crown that are not present in this case. [ 23 ] For example, in R. v.

Patel [ii] , the trial court imposed a 4-year sentence after a finding of guilt relating to firearm, drug, and breach offences. Mr. Patel was wanted by police for an attempted murder and was evading police when he was arrested in possession of a firearm. He also had a related record. [ 24 ] In R. v. Marshall [iii] , the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 3.5 years for a 23-year-old first offender convicted of possessing a loaded firearm.

The factors considered by the sentencing judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal were the facts that he was in possession of a prohibited loaded handgun at a location where drug deals were occurring, several persons were present and the potential for violence was high; the offender seemed to minimize and rationalize his weapons offence and did not see the need to make changes in his life nor was he open to counselling.

While on bail for the firearm offence, he was arrested and pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking 60 grams of cocaine, valued at between $5,000 and $6,000. [ 25 ] This case is distinguishable from Mr. Goodridge’s situation in many respects, including the fact that Mr. Goodridge fully accepts responsibility for his actions, does not seek to rationalize, and is prepared to take steps to make real changes in his life. [ 26 ] In R. v. Reid [iv] , a sentence of 3 years was imposed after trial for convictions of numerous firearms offences. Mr.

Reid was in possession of a firearm with an overcapacity magazine in a parking lot with other members of the public present. He had a prior record that included drug offences and a 9-month custodial sentence. There were no convictions for gun offences or crimes of violence. The trial was conducted expeditiously and efficiently with Mr. Reid making appropriate concessions and focussing the trial on the specific issues he sought to raise. Unlike Mr. Reid, Mr. Goodridge has never spent any time in custody and does not have a prior related record. [ 27 ] In R. v.

Griffith [v] , a sentence of 6 years less pre-sentence custody was imposed on a 22-year-old. He was found in possession of a loaded handgun, ready to fire with 12 rounds. He was in possession of 34 grams of crack and was found to be a mid-level drug trafficker. He had prior related convictions. Balancing the various mitigating and aggravating factors, the Court found that a global sentence of 6 years less pre-sentence custody was the appropriate sentence for Mr. Griffith. This included a consecutive term for the weapons prohibition. [ 28 ] Unlike Mr. Griffith, Mr.

Goodridge does not have a related record, has never spent any time in custody, and was at most a street-level trafficker. [ 29 ] Mr. Spratt relied on the decisions in R. v. Hassan [vi] and R. v. Roeske [vii] in support of his submissions for a 2-year conditional sentence. In Hassan , the trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years after finding Mr. Hassan guilty of numerous firearm offences. Mr.

Hassan had done tremendous work prior to sentencing, receiving support from many members of the community including the officer who arrested him and a city councillor. [ 30 ] In Roeske , the Crown sought a 5-year sentence after Mr. Roeske pled guilty to drug and firearm offences. The sentencing judge found that Mr. Roeske made efforts to turn his life around, completed many hours of community service, drug treatment and counselling and imposed a 2-year conditional sentence. [ 31 ] The work completed by Mr. Hassan and Mr. Roeske before sentencing was outstanding.

The fact that I do not have similar information about Mr. Goodridge does not mean that his situation does not warrant blending of the punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the sentence.

On this point, I make mine the words of the sentencing judge in Morris when he says that: … we have to get past the idea of waiting for the perfect person to be lenient. … The young man who makes the choice to pick up a loaded illegal handgun will not likely be a product of a private school upbringing who has the security of falling back upon upper middle-class family resources. [ 32 ] What these cases illustrate is that while denunciation and deterrence is a primary consideration for firearm offences that sit at the true crime end of the spectrum, there is a range of sentences, and denunciation and deterrence can be achieved through the imposition of a conditional sentence.

The decision most helpful and relevant is the Court of Appeal’s decision in Morris . R. v.

Morris [ 33 ] In Morris [viii] , the Court of Appeal considered the impact of anti-Black racism on sentencing and finds that courts can “acquire relevant social context evidence through the proper application of judicial notice or as social context evidence describing the existence, causes and impact of anti-Black racism in Canadian society and the specific effect of anti-Black racism on the offender.” [ix] The Court also found that a trial judge can take judicial notice of many of the historical and social facts referred to in the expert report filed at Mr. Morris’s sentencing hearing.

The Court goes further and adds the report bears reading and rereading by those called upon to prosecute, defend, and sentence black offenders, particularly young black offenders. [x] [ 34 ] The Court also makes clear that the seriousness of the offence is not diminished by evidence which sheds light on why the offender chose to commit the crimes and says at paras. 75 to 76 that: [75] With respect, we do not agree that the gravity or seriousness of Mr. Morris’s offences is diminished by evidence which sheds light on why he chose to commit those crimes.

We do agree with the trial judge that an offender’s life experiences can certainly influence the choices made by the offender, and can explain, to some degree at least, why an offender made a choice to commit a particular crime in the specified circumstances. Those life experiences can include societal disadvantages flowing from systemic anti-Black racism in

society and the criminal justice system. [76] Evidence that an offender’s choices were limited or influenced by his disadvantaged circumstances, however, speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility for his acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes. Possession of a loaded, concealed handgun in public is made no less serious, dangerous, and harmful to the community by evidence that the offender’s possession of the loaded handgun can be explained by factors, including systemic anti-Black racism, which will mitigate, to some extent, the offender’s responsibility: see Hamilton , at paras. 134-39; R. v.

Hazell , 2020 ONCJ 358 , at paras. 30-32 ; see also Dale E.

Ives, “Inequality, Crime and Sentencing: Borde, Hamilton and the Relevance of Social Disadvantage in Canadian Sentencing Law” (2004) 30 Queen's L.J. 114, at p. 149. [xi] [ 35 ] At paras. 79 and 80, the Court goes on to say: [79] The social context evidence can, however, provide a basis upon which a trial judge concludes that the fundamental purpose of sentencing, as outlined in s. 718, is better served by a sentence which, while recognizing the seriousness of the offence, gives less weight to the specific deterrence of the offender and greater weight to the rehabilitation of the offender through a sentence that addresses the societal disadvantages caused to the offender by factors such as systemic racism. [80] Blending the various objectives of sentencing is the essence of the sentencing process.

There is seldom one and only one fit sentence. As long as the sentence imposed complies with the proportionality requirement in s. 718.1, trial judges are given considerable discretion to decide how best to blend the various legitimate objectives of sentencing.

If trial judges operate within that band of discretion, the different weight assigned to different objectives may produce different but nonetheless equally fit sentences. [xii] [ 36 ] In Morris , the Ontario Court of Appeal found that “[i]f the sentencing judge determines that the range of sentence for the particular offence and offender includes a two-year sentence, and that probation would assist the offender’s rehabilitation, the restraint principle favours imposing a sentence of no more than two years, even if a somewhat longer period of incarceration would also fall within the appropriate range.” [xiii] [ 37 ] The Expert Report on Crime, Criminal Justice and the Experience of Black Canadians in Toronto, Ontario, filed in the Morris case sets out many of the systemic factors faced by Black Canadians.

What stands out from the expert report is the fact that Black Canadians and youth are disproportionately represented, disadvantaged, marginalized, and disenfranchised within the child welfare system, in education, in employment opportunities and in their dealings with the criminal justice system. [ 38 ] For example, black children and youth are overrepresented within the welfare system in Ontario and are treated differently in comparison to white children and youth experiencing more negative outcomes and less access to services.

The report also finds that black children are living in poverty at a rate of 33% for those of Caribbean heritage and 47% for those of African descent compared to 18% for white children. [ 39 ] In the education system black students are streamed into non-university track programs, and they tend to graduate below the provincial graduation rate. Black students are often stereotyped as troublemakers and often subject to increased surveillance and school disciplinary action. The authors of the report find that the relationship between educational failure and criminalization is well-established.

Furthermore, the low levels of academic achievement contribute to inequalities in the employment sector. The authors of the report attribute the negative consequences of anti-Black racism to the school-to-prison pipeline [ 40 ] Black offenders are also overrepresented in correctional institutions. The report sets out that institutional rules are applied differently to them compared with whites and inmates from other racial groups.

For example, black inmates were consistently overrepresented in discretionary charge categories (those requiring judgment from the correctional officer) and underrepresented in less discretionary charge categories. [ 41 ] The findings of the expert report are the reality of Mr. Goodridge’s life to date. As previously mentioned in these reasons, he has been affected by many of the systemic factors faced by Black Canadians identified in the report. Mr. Goodridge’s involvement in drug trafficking was motivated to get his family out of the neighbourhood in which they live.

This is an area with a high crime rate that is heavily surveilled by police. He chose to carry a firearm because he had beef with some individuals and feared for his family and himself. The family’s situation was financially precarious. Some will say that many people live in situations like Mr. Goodridge and do not resort to trafficking drugs and possessing firearms. This is true. However, the systemic factors making it difficult for Ms. Goodridge to comfortably provide for her family, the repeated messaging from school authorities that Mr.

Goodridge was a troublemaker and his exclusion from the school setting, the negative interactions with authorities including police, the trauma of being placed in a foster home after seeing his mom restrained by police officers help understand why Mr. Goodridge would make the choices he did. The authors of the expert report attribute the negative consequences of anti-Black racism to the school-to-prison pipeline, and, in my view, the experiences lived by Mr.

Goodridge are an example of this. [ 42 ] The range of sentence for this type of offence includes a sentence of 2 years less a day at the low end and a penitentiary sentence such as the one suggested by the Crown at the higher end. To determine the overall fitness of the sentence in this case, I have considered the aggravating factors that include the possession of a loaded firearm, the fact that Mr. Goodridge was on probation at the time and the subject of a weapons prohibition, his limited criminal record and the nature of the substance.

I have also considered the mitigating factors that include his youth, the time spent in pre-sentence custody during the pandemic, the time spent on house arrest, the strong support of his parents and his rehabilitative potential. I also consider the fact that Mr.

Goodridge’s moral blameworthiness is mitigated by his educational/economic disadvantages resulting from systemic anti-Black racism. [ 43 ] In Morris , the Court of Appeal finds that “[i]f the sentencing judge determines that the range of sentence for the particular offence and offender includes a two-year sentence and that probation would assist the offender’s rehabilitation, the restraint principle favours imposing a sentence of no more than two years, even if a somewhat longer period of incarceration would also fall within the appropriate range.” [xiv] In this case, I find that that the sentencing range includes a sentence of 2 years less a day and that probation would assist Mr.

Goodridge’s rehabilitation. Restraint favours imposing a sentence of no more than 2 years. [ 44 ] Having determined that a sentence of 2 years less a day is the appropriate sentence in this case, I must now determine

whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In Morris , the Court of Appeal found that the restraint principle “requires the court, if it determines that a sentence of less than two years imprisonment would be appropriate, to consider whether the term of imprisonment could be served in the community under a conditional sentence: Criminal Code , s. 742.1 . The restraint principle favours conditional sentences over incarceration if a conditional sentence is consistent with the proportionality principle: see R. v. R.N.S. , 2000 SCC 7 , [2000] 1 SCR 149, at para. 21 .” [xv] Conditional Sentence [ 45 ]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code provides that where a person is convicted of an offence, except an offence that is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, and the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, and is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2, the Court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the offender’s complying with the conditions of a conditional sentence order made under s. 742.3. [xvi] [ 46 ] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Proulx sets out the analytical framework to assess whether a conditional sentence is available and explains that a conditional sentence can achieve the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence. At para. 41, the Court states: 41 This is not to say that the conditional sentence is a lenient punishment or that it does not provide significant denunciation and deterrence, or that a conditional sentence can never be as harsh as incarceration. As this Court stated in Gladue , supra , at para. 72: … in our view a sentence focussed on restorative justice is not necessarily a “lighter” punishment.

Some proponents of restorative justice argue that when it is combined with probationary conditions it may in some circumstances impose a greater burden on the offender than a custodial sentence.

A conditional sentence may be as onerous as, or perhaps even more onerous than, a jail term, particularly in circumstances where the offender is forced to take responsibility for his or her actions and make reparations to both the victim and the community, all the while living in the community under tight controls. [xvii] [ 47 ] The Supreme Court in Proulx addresses the availability of a conditional sentence for serious offences and reiterates at para. 82 that: 82 … sentencing is an individualized process, in which the trial judge has considerable discretion in fashioning a fit sentence.

The rationale behind this approach stems from the principle of proportionality, the fundamental principle of sentencing, which provides that a sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Proportionality requires an examination of the specific circumstances of both the offender and the offence so that the “punishment fits the crime”.

As a by-product of such an individualized approach, there will be inevitable variation in sentences imposed for particular crimes. [xviii] [ 48 ] The Court goes on to say that a conditional sentence facilitates the achievement of Parliament’s objectives to reduce the use of incarceration and give greater prominence to principles of restorative justice. The conditional sentence allows the sentencing judge the opportunity to craft a sentence that can lead to rehabilitation, reparations to the community and the promotion of a sense of responsibility.

The Court stresses the fact that a conditional sentence can achieve both punitive and restorative objectives and to the extent that both punitive and restorative objectives can be achieved in a given case, a conditional sentence is likely a better sanction than incarceration. [xix] [ 49 ] The expert report referred to previously finds that Black Canadians are grossly overrepresented in provincial and federal institutions. [xx] Parliament’s intention when enacting the conditional sentence provisions was to reduce the over-reliance on incarceration.

It stands to reason that a conditional sentence can help address the overrepresentation of Black Canadians in jail. [ 50 ] In R. v. Sharma , the majority of the Court of Appeal struck down ss. 742.1 (

c) and 742.1 (

e) because they contravene ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter .

In its analysis, the Court reminds sentencing judges that a conditional sentence serves the functions of deterrence and denunciation and are available even in cases where deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing objectives. [xxi] [ 51 ] In Morris , the Court found that “a carefully fashioned conditional sentence that is responsive, both to the needs of denunciation and deterrence and the rehabilitative potential of the offender, can in some situations be a fit sentence for a s. 95 offence.” [xxii] [ 52 ] The Court goes on to say at para. 129 that, “the use of conditional sentences when sentencing young Black offenders, in appropriate cases, also carries the added advantage of addressing, at least as it relates to the offender before the court, the ongoing systemic problem of the over-incarceration of young Black offenders.” [xxiii] [ 53 ] The factors to consider when assessing whether a conditional sentence is available and whether to impose one are: 1) the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; 2) the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years; 3) the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and 4) a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.

[ 54 ] The first two factors to consider favour the imposition of a conditional sentence. The offences of which I found Mr. Goodridge guilty are not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, and I have determined that a sentence of less than 2 years is the appropriate sentence in this case. [ 55 ] The third factor to consider is whether the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community.

The focus of the analysis at this point should clearly be on the risk posed by the individual offender while serving his sentence in the community; that is, the risk of Mr. Goodridge re-offending and the gravity of the damage that could ensue if he re-offended. Mr. Bencze argues that the nature of the offending means that the safety of the community would be endangered; I do not agree that the analysis limits itself to this consideration. The offences are serious but that is not the only factor to consider. Mr.

Goodridge has a limited criminal record, no prior convictions for drugs or firearms and he has been in the community on bail for 20 months, including 184 days on house arrest and 357 days on a curfew, with no issues; he has family support and is committed to changing his life. I find that the safety of the community would not be endangered by allowing Mr.

Goodridge to serve his sentence in the community because I find that his risk of re-offending is low. [ 56 ] The fourth and last factor to consider is whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. [xxiv] [ 57 ] The caselaw is clear that a conditional sentence can serve the purposes of denunciation and deterrence through the imposition of punitive conditions. The imposition of house arrest, a curfew, and community service hours requiring Mr.

Goodridge to give back to the community he harmed will meet the denunciation and deterrence principles. This custodial sentence will be followed by a lengthy period of probation with conditions crafted to provide him with support and supervision to promote rehabilitation, reparation through community service, and a sense of responsibility towards the community. [ 58 ] The nature of the offences demands a denunciatory and deterrent sentence.

In Morris , the Court found that an offender’s life experiences, including societal disadvantages flowing from anti-Black racism in society and the criminal justice system, can influence the choices made by the offender and explain to some degree why an offender made a choice to commit a particular crime in the specified circumstances. [xxv] The Court goes on to say that social context evidence can provide a basis for a judge to conclude that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is better served by a sentence that, while recognizing the seriousness of the offence, gives less weight to specific deterrence and greater weight to the rehabilitation of the offender through a sentence that addresses the societal disadvantages caused to the offender by factors such as systemic racism. [ 59 ] The information from the enhanced pre-sentence report makes clear that this is a case where the principles of sentencing are better served by giving added weight to the principle of rehabilitation and less weight to specific deterrence.

Giving weight to the systemic factors that have impacted Mr. Goodridge does not diminish the seriousness of the offence. It is an acknowledgement that sentencing is an individualized process that is tailored to the specific offender and considers the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [ 60 ] In arriving at the appropriate sentence, I am mindful that the caselaw establishes that a sentence for a weapons prohibition is usually a consecutive sentence. In the circumstances of this case, I find that imposing a consecutive sentence for the weapons prohibition would result in an unduly long or harsh sentence.

Furthermore, I find that imposing a consecutive sentence for the weapons prohibition rather than a concurrent sentence would effectively result in paying lip service to the acknowledgement that evidence of anti-Black racism and its impact on the specific offender can be an important consideration when determining the appropriate sentence. Pre-Sentence Credit [ 61 ] Prior to giving my decision, I asked counsel to make submissions to me on the Court of Appeal’s decisions in R. v. Marshall and R. v.

Downes with a particular emphasis on whether Duncan credit and Downes credit should be treated as a mitigating factor or deducted from the sentence imposed. [ 62 ] They jointly brought to my attention the recent Court of Appeal decision in R. v. C.C . in which Justice Paciocco finds that: [5] Some judges choose to achieve that mitigation by granting a “ Downes credit” that is set off against the sentence that would otherwise have been imposed. Other judges choose to factor the punitive impact that bail conditions have had on the offender into their overall determination of a fit sentence.

Neither approach is in error. In this case, the trial judge explained why she would not grant a credit for the stringent bail conditions C.C. had been under. In doing so, she gave the requisite consideration to whether to exercise discretion to reduce C.C.’s sentence because of those conditions. [xxvi] [ 63 ] With respect to Duncan credit, both Mr. Bencze and Mr. Spratt take the view that it can be offset from the sentence or treated as mitigating. [ 64 ] Mr. Bencze reiterated his position that Mr.

Goodridge should not be granted any Duncan credit because most of the pre-sentence custody was spent prior to the pandemic.

The Court of Appeal in Marshall reiterates that particularly punitive pre-trial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the Summers credit will be deducted. [ 65 ] The expert report filed for the Morris sentencing, finds that young Black Canadians serve longer periods of time in pre- trial detention resulting in a longer period of incarceration than others serve with the same or similar crimes. There is no doubt that the pre-trial conditions during the pandemic are harsh.

In my view, failing to consider the harsh pre-trial conditions that result from the pandemic fails to give adequate recognition to the systemic issues faced by Mr. Goodridge as a member of a population that is overrepresented in pre-trial detention settings.

[ 66 ] Mr. Goodridge spent 83 days in pre-sentence custody, 28 of which, or a third, were during a global pandemic. I find it to be a relevant mitigating factor to consider in arriving at the appropriate sentence. Given the short period of time, it may not have a significant impact, but it should not be disregarded as suggested by the Crown. [ 67 ] I also find that the 6 months spent on house arrest is a mitigating factor in arriving at the appropriate sentence. However, in the absence of evidence on the impact of the conditions on Mr. Goodridge, they are entitled to relatively little weight.

Fit Sentence [ 68 ] Mr. Goodridge, please stand, sir. [ 69 ] Considering all the relevant sentencing principles, I find that the appropriate sentence is one of 2 years less a day to be served in the community followed by 3 years of probation. A term of probation is necessary in this case and will provide for an extended period of supervision and access to culturally sensitive counselling, thereby enhancing your rehabilitation, Mr.

Goodridge, and providing added long-term safety for the community. [ 70 ] So you are sentenced, sir, to 2 years less a day less Summers credit for the 83 days spent in pre-sentence custody, so that is 4 months, which means that you have 20 months remaining to serve. These 20 months will be served in the community on a conditional sentence order with the following conditions. So, Mr. Bencze, this is where we are at. I am going to go through the conditional sentence conditions and the probation conditions. Would you like to ask a colleague to step in or would you like to remain? MR.

BENCZE: Your Honour, I’ve asked my colleague to step in at 9:55, so with the Court’s permission if I could just sign off without interrupting, Your Honour, at 9:55 once I see that my colleague has joined, if that’s acceptable. THE COURT: Yes, that is acceptable. Thank you for taking care of that. MR. BENCZE: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So I just need a moment here. (Pause) Starting first with the statutory conditions. The statutory conditions, Mr. Goodridge, what that means is those are the conditions that I have to impose by law, okay? So: a. You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. b.

You are to appear before the court when required to do so. c. You are to report in person to a supervisor and thereafter report when required by the supervisor and in a manner directed by the supervisor. d. You are to remain in Ontario unless you have prior written permission from the court or the supervisor to leave the province, and e. You are to notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation.

So you are to report today by telephone to a supervisor and after that at all times and places as requested by the supervisor. f. You are to live at an address approved of by the supervisor and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the supervisor in advance. g. You will be on house arrest, Mr. Goodridge, for the first 15 months of this sentence. So you are to remain inside your residence at all times. Do you have a balcony or a backyard? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: I have a balcony. THE COURT: You have a balcony, so you can go out to the balcony. MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: Yes.

THE COURT: For the first 15 months of your house arrest except – there’s going to be exceptions - once a week for the necessities of life. Mr. Goodridge, what day of the week would you like to be able to leave? MR. SPRATT: (Confers with Miykael Goodridge) Friday would be the preferable day, Your Honour, and if Your Honour needs more specificity, he’s thinking Friday afternoon from 1:00 till 5:00. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So, as I was saying, you will be on house arrest for 15 months with exceptions:

i) Once a week on Fridays, from 1:00 to 5:00, to obtain the necessities of life; ii) To attend school or work; iii) To attend counselling or mentorship; iv) To perform community service hours;

v) For medical emergencies for yourself and a member of your immediate family; or vi) With prior approval of your supervisor. Now for all these exceptions, when I say, for example, to attend school or work, it is to go directly to the place and to return directly from. So it is not stopping at Tim Hortons on the way or stopping to say “hello” to somebody on the way. You are going to that location and you are returning directly from that location. During the period of house arrest, so during the 15 months of your house arrest: h. You cannot have any visitors.

So your friends can’t come visit and hang out with you while you are on house arrest, okay? I need you to understand this is a jail sentence that I am allowing you to serve in the community. For the balance of your sentence, you will have a curfew, so: i. For the remaining 5 months, you will have a curfew between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. with the following exceptions:

i) For school and/or work; ii) To perform 50 hours of community service; iii) For medical emergencies involving yourself and a member of your immediate family; or iv) With prior written approval of the supervisor. The other conditions are: j. You are to connect with Black led agencies to seek mentorship and maintain a mentorship relationship with someone assigned to you by one of the following organizations: Jaku Konbit, ABC Wellness Resource Centre, the Afro-Caribbean Services, or Tropicana Community Services, or another culturally appropriate organization. I will ask that the list provided by Mr.

Spratt be attached to the Information and be provided to Probation so they have the list of Black community led agencies. k. In addition, you are to attend culturally appropriate counselling and/or training to assist with math and reading skills, trauma, employment counselling, job skills and apprenticeship training. l. You are to sign all releases to allow the conditional sentence supervisor to supervise your conditional sentence. m. As well, Mr.

Goodridge, you are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code , for example, a BB gun, a pellet gun, a firearm, an imitation firearm, a crossbow, a prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person.

n. You are to perform 50 hours of community service to be completed by the end of this conditional sentence. And with respect to counselling, I think I have covered everything and I would just simply add: “and other areas as determined by the conditional sentence supervisor”. Those are the conditions that I have turned my mind to for the conditional sentence. Was there anything else that you would like to see on the conditional sentence, Mr. Bencze? MR. BENCZE: Nothing to add. I think my colleague is just in the waiting room, Your Honour. If he could be admitted. THE COURT: Okay. ...MR.

JONES ENTERS THE VIRTUAL COURTROOM MR. BENCZE: Thank you. I’ll ask to be excused. THE COURT: All right. Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Bencze. MR. BENCZE: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Good morning, Your Honour. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Spratt, was there anything else with respect to the conditional sentence conditions that I may have omitted? MR. SPRATT: Just one point of clarification, Your Honour. For the curfew, you mentioned an exception to “complete community service” and I think that was the same for the house arrest portion. THE COURT: Right. MR.

SPRATT: Was there a number for the community service to be completed during the conditional sentence, or is that blended with the probation? THE COURT: No, it’s not blended. It’s 50 hours during... MR. SPRATT: Okay. THE COURT: ...the conditional sentence, and I did not mention it in the house arrest condition. So just to be clear, it’s not 50 hours during house arrest and 50 hours during the curfew. It’s 50 hours during the 20 months of the conditional sentence. MR. SPRATT: Understood. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Anything else with respect to the conditional sentence? MR. SPRATT: I don’t think so, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Goodridge, I have to tell you, sir, and I have said it before, this is a jail sentence, right? So it is important for you to follow all these conditions. If you do not follow one of these conditions and you are caught not following one of these conditions, you will be arrested, brought into custody and the presumption is that you serve the rest of the sentence in a real jail, and what that means is you would have to establish with the help of your lawyer, of course, why I should not have you serve the rest of the sentence in a real jail. Do you understand? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: All right. o. In addition, you will be required to return to court. For the first 4 months of this conditional sentence, I will be asking the conditional sentence supervisor to provide reports and you will be required to attend court for me to know what is going on with your conditional sentence. Once you are assigned a supervisor, we can sort out the logistics of that. It can be while you are meeting with your conditional sentence supervisor, for example. I just want to touch base and know what is going on, and then after the first four months, we will assess the frequency of your attendance.

It may be quarterly, but I will want reports and I will want to keep tabs and know what is going on with you. Okay? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: (No audible response)

THE COURT: After your conditional sentence, Mr. Goodridge, you will be on probation for a period of 3 years. During that probation: a. You will have to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. b. Report to the court when required to do so and you will be required to report to court during the probation, and c. Notify the court or the probation officer of any change of name or address or employment or occupation. Sorry, I just need to go back to the conditional sentence. One of the conditions of the conditional sentence that I forgot to mention is that: p. You are to attend school or find a job.

So it’s not just that you have an exception to the house arrest to go to school or work, but you have to actively – you have to go to school or get a job. Likewise in your probation: d. You are to report to the probation officer at all times and places as required by the probation officer. The first reporting for your probation will be within two business days of the end of your conditional sentence. e. You are to live at a place approved of by the probation officer. f. You are to attend school and/or work. g.

You are to participate in culturally appropriate counselling and/or training for math and reading skills, trauma, employment counselling, job skills and apprenticeship training and anything else deemed appropriate by the probation officer, and h. You are to sign all releases to allow the probation officer to supervise your attendance at these programs. i.

You are to connect with black led community agencies and seek mentorship and maintain a mentorship relationship with a person assigned to you by one of the following organizations: blackladders.ca, Jaku Konbit, ABC Wellness Resource Centre, the Afro- Caribbean Services, or Tropicana Community Services, or another culturally appropriate organization. j. You are to complete 100 hours of community service, and k. You are to sign all releases to allow the probation officer to supervise you in the community.

Now the 100 hours of community service in your probation and 50 hours of community service in the conditional sentence are to be conducted with a black community agency or within your community, maybe if there is a community centre in your neighbourhood, but it’s got to be culturally appropriate so that you give back to the community. Are there are other conditions, Mr. Spratt, or is there anything about the conditions that I have just read that are unclear? MR. SPRATT: Mr. Goodridge is indicating no, and it’s clear to me too, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. Mr.

Goodridge, I have to tell you that if you don’t follow the probation conditions – actually, I forgot. There is going to be a reporting condition on the probation. So at the beginning of the probation, we will start with a monthly reporting, see how you are doing, and then the reporting can be varied to be quarterly or every – we will see how you are doing, but: l. You will be required to report at the end of the first month of your probation and the probation officer will need to provide me a report of how you are doing, and thereafter as directed.

Are there any conditions of this probation order that you do not understand, Mr. Goodridge? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: No, I understand it all. THE COURT: Okay. I have to tell you that if you don’t follow one of the conditions of the probation, you can find yourself facing new charges and back before the court. Do you understand? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, what I want to tell you as well is that I am recommending that your supervision, both for the conditional sentence and for the probation, be by an Afro-Canadian supervisor or a probation officer with knowledge and understanding of the systemic issues at play. I am also, Mr. Goodridge, making an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code . That is an order that is going to be in force for the rest of your life.

You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code , for example, a BB gun, a pellet gun, a firearm, an imitation firearm, a crossbow, a prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person. In addition, the Crown has asked for a sample of your DNA and I do grant that order. The DNA is on the 95(2), is that right? It is on the 5(1), I believe, but does it apply also on the 95(2)? MR. SPRATT: I believe so, Your Honour. THE COURT: All right.

So it will be made on those two counts. And the Crown seeks forfeiture of the items seized, and all items, except the money that was seized on your person when you were arrested, all items will be forfeited to the Crown. ...CLERK REGISTRAR READS THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER THE COURT: And just to be clear, Mr. Goodridge, I think I said to you your friends can’t come over, right? Your mom is not on house arrest. If she wants to have her friend over, she can do that. I just don’t want any misunderstanding about that. You can’t have your friends visiting. MR. SPRATT: Understood. Mr.

Goodridge is nodding in acknowledgement, Your Honour. THE COURT: Yes, thank you. ...CLERK REGISTRAR READS THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBATION ...DISCUSSING S. 109 ORDER THE COURT: Madam Clerk, the weapons prohibition should be on count 8, the 95(2), and on count 1, the 5(1). CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you. And the DNA was on count 95(2) and which count – I missed the other one. THE COURT: One. CLERK REGISTRAR: Okay. And these are all secondary or are they primary? THE COURT: I thought they were – that I’ll have to check. MR. JONES: Your Honour, s. 109(

b) includes 95(1) but doesn’t include 95(2). THE COURT: Okay. So then the 109 applies strictly to the 5(1)? CLERK REGISTRAR: Okay, thank you. THE COURT: Is that what you’re saying, Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: Yes, based on the information I have or don’t have in front of me,... THE COURT: Right. MR. JONES: ...but I think, you know, it’s going to be effective under the 5(1). THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONES: And 95(2) is not included. I’m just looking to see if it is under 110. THE COURT: Well – but 109(d), though, it applies to all of the firearm offences because Mr. Goodridge was the subject of a weapons prohibition... MR. JONES: Of course. THE COURT: ...at the time. MR. JONES: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: Mr. Spratt, do you agree with that? MR. SPRATT: Yes, Your Honour. THE COURT: All right. So the 109 applies to all of the weapons charges, Madam Clerk, and to the 5(1). And then you had asked about the DNA, whether it’s secondary or primary. I have to find you that answer. MR. JONES: I can confirm that that is secondary, Your Honour. THE COURT: For the weapons and the 5(1)? MR. JONES: For the 5(1), it is secondary. THE COURT: Okay. (Pause) I don’t know if it’s my glasses but I don’t seem to see it. I see – definitely secondary for the drugs, but then where are the.... MR.

SPRATT: I believe it’s secondary for the firearms offences as well, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. I see explosives. So, Mr. Spratt, I made the order. I didn’t ask for submissions. Do you have a position? MR. SPRATT: No, Your Honour. It’s appropriate. THE COURT: I agree. All right. Madam Clerk, we’ll just – I don’t see it on either the primary or the secondary, I don’t understand. All right. What I’m going to suggest, Madam Clerk, let’s finish all the other aspects of the sentence and then I can take a closer look, or if Mr. Spratt and Mr.

Jones can direct me, but I literally do not see the firearm offences as I’m reading the primary and the secondary lists, although I guess it may be – no. Strange. Okay. Any other questions, Madam Clerk? CLERK REGISTRAR: I’ll just have to know how you’d like to mark the pre-sentence custody, on which count, et cetera? THE COURT: Yes, but with respect to the various orders? I was going to go.... CLERK REGISTRAR: I believe – sorry. THE COURT: Go ahead, Madam Clerk. CLERK REGISTRAR: I was going to say, I think for the orders I’m okay. I’ll send you what I have and – to make sure. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr.

Jones. MR. JONES: Your Honour, under “secondary offence”, any offence under this Act “that may be prosecuted by indictment … for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more”. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONES: So it’s a “basket clause” I guess the expression is. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. JONES: And (b) “an[y] offence under any of the following provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that may be prosecuted by indictment … for which the maximum punishment is … five years or more”, so. THE COURT: Great. Thank you.

So, Madam Clerk, for the DNA, it’s secondary and I think that covers that. With respect to the counts, my thought – and I’ll hear from counsel if they don’t agree – it’d be 2 years less a day. So the pre-sentence custody should attach to count 8, which is the 95(2), and then the remainder of the term, the 20 months on the 95(2). And then the rest of the time was going to be concurrent. I had 6 months concurrent on the 5(1), 30 days concurrent on count 2, the simple possession count, and then 9 months concurrent on the remaining counts. That’s kind of what I thought, but I welcome comments. MR.

SPRATT: No submissions or comments from me, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: No submissions from the Crown on that. Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. So, Madam Clerk, do you want me to go through that again? CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, please, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. So: • Count 1 will be 6 months concurrent;

• Count 2 will be 30 days concurrent; • Counts 3, 4, 5, 7 will be 9 months concurrent; • Count 8 will have the pre-sentence custody and the remaining 20 months to serve; • Counts 9 and 10 will be 9 months concurrent; Count 6 was stayed, I skipped that, eh? CLERK REGISTRAR: You skipped it, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. • Count 11 will be 30 days concurrent. CLERK REGISTRAR: Okay. THE COURT: And Mr. Goodridge was found not guilty of count 12. CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes. Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. All right.

CLERK REGISTRAR: And, Your Honour, for the DNA, is he to appear today given that he’s here in court or would you like him to appear on a different day? THE COURT: Let’s have it done today given that he’s here. ...CLERK REGISTRAR IS COMPLETING THE PAPERWORK THE COURT: Mr. Spratt, it dawns on me that we did not talk about the victim surcharge. Was it in force at the time of the offences? MR. SPRATT: It.... THE COURT: January 29 th . MR. SPRATT: I believe it was in force but Your Honour has the discretion to waive the victim fine surcharge and I would make that application, Your Honour. Mr.

Goodridge is not employed right now and has a number of community service and counselling obligations that – it may be best served to put his attention towards that, and just the information put before the Court in terms of the sentencing reveals, I submit, that it’d be a hardship for Mr. Goodridge should it be imposed. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jones, any comments? MR. JONES: No submissions, Your Honour. THE COURT: All right. Given the number of counts, I think it’s $200 per count and there’s I think 11 or 12 counts of which I found Mr. Goodridge guilty. Given Mr.

Goodridge’s personal circumstances that I’ve spoken about and the sentencing decision and the fact that he’s not working, I find that it would create financial hardship if I impose the victim surcharge and I waive it, I don’t so impose it in this case. MR. SPRATT: Madam Clerk just stepped out to make some copies, Your Honour. THE COURT: Okay. It’s on the record and then I’ll.... MR. SPRATT: Yes. THE COURT: And I’ll tell her. Thank you. It’s difficult when I can’t see her, right? But I’m not complaining, it’s great that we have this as an option. ...DISCUSSING PROCEDURAL MATTERS THE COURT: All right, Mr.

Goodridge, good luck. I will see you in a month’s time. I look forward to hearing the work that – the beginning of the work that’s been done and I can’t stress it enough. The sentence that I impose, even though I’m allowing you to serve it in the community, is a jail sentence, so you really – you’ve got to mind yourself and follow the conditions. Okay? MIYKAEL GOODRIDGE: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: You’re welcome.

THE COURT: You’re welcome. ******** [i] R. v. Morris , 2018 ONSC 5186 , [2019] O.J. No. 4631 , at para. 84 , var’d R. v. Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 [ii] R. v. Patel, 2019 ONSC 6302 , [2019] O.J. No. 5548 . [iii] R. v. Marshall , 2015 ONCA 692 , [2015] O.J. No. 5348 . [iv] R. v. Reid , 2021 ONSC 5174 , [2021] O.J. No. 4132 . [v] R. v. Griffith , 2019 ONSC 358 , [2019] O.J. No. 219 , aff’d R. v. Griffith , 2021 ONCA 302 . [vi] R. v. Hassan , 2017 ONSC 4570 , [2017] O.J. No. 3906 . [vii] R. v. Roeske , 2018 ONCJ 874 , [2018] O.J. No. 6716 . [viii] Supra , note i. [ix] R. v.

Morris , 2021 ONCA 680 at para. 13 . [x] Morris , supra note ix at paras. 42 and 43. [xi] Morris , supra note ix at paras. 75–76. [xii] Morris , supra note ix at paras. 79-80. [xiii] Morris , supra note ix at para. 130. [xiv] Ibid . [xvi] Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 at s. 742.1 . [xvii] R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 at para. 41 . [xx] Carl J., Akwasi O-B, Carnisha S., “Expert Report on Crime, Criminal Justice and the Experience of Black Canadians in Toronto, Ontario”. (ref’d R. v. Morris , 2018 ONSC 5186 at “Appendix A”.) [xxi] R. v. Sharma , 2020 ONCA 478 , [2020] O.J.

No. 3183 at para. 110 . [xxii] Morris , supra note ix at para. 126. [xxiii] Morris , supra note ix at para. 129. 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [xxv] Morris , supra note ix at para 75. [xxvi] R. v C.C. , 2021 ONCA 600 at para 5 . CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE ACT , subsection 5(2) I, Lynn Carrière, Authorized Court Transcriptionist, ACT ID 2366775200, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript, produced to the best of my skills and ability, of the recording of R. v.

Miykael Goodridge in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, taken from

Recording No. 0411_CR11_20220113_083623_6_DumelM, which has been certified in Form 1 by Claire Simard (and formatted as per written draft decision). January 19, 2022 Date Lynn Carrière