R. v. Glasgow, 2023 NSSC 391

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Glasgow , 2023 NSSC 391 Date: 20231107 Docket: CRH-495911 Registry: Halifax Between: His Majesty the King v. Devlin Tyson Glasgow DECISION ON PAROLE INELIGIBILITY Judge: The Honourable Justice Joshua Arnold Heard: November 7, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: November 7, 2023 Written Decision: December 1, 2023 Counsel: Rick Woodburn, K.C. and Sean McCarroll, for the Crown D. Sid Freeman, for Devlin Glasgow Introduction [ 1 ] Devlin Tyson Glasgow was convicted of the second-degree murder of Matthew Sudds on March 4, 2023.

As a result of being convicted of murder, Mr. Glasgow is automatically sentenced to life in prison. This is the parole ineligibility decision. For the reasons that follow, I set his parole ineligibility at 16 years. Facts [ 2 ]

Section 724 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: 724

(1) In determining a sentence, a court may accept as proved any information disclosed at the trial or at the sentencing proceedings and any facts agreed on by the prosecutor and the offender.

Jury

(2) Where the court is composed of a judge and jury, the court (

a) shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty; and (

b) may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either party with respect to that fact. [ 3 ] In accordance with s. 724(2), as the trial judge I am required and entitled to make my own findings of relevant facts, so long as they are consistent with the jury’s verdict. Having heard the trial evidence, including the testimony of the civilian witnesses, police witnesses, and expert witnesses, and having seen the video evidence, I find the relevant facts for determining Mr.

Glasgow’s parole ineligibility to be as follows: For several weeks leading up to October 10, 2013, Ricardo Whynder and Devlin Glasgow, and Ricardo Whynder and Matthew Sudds, had been communicating via cell phone and in person. On October 9, 2013, Devlin Glasgow bought a plane ticket at the last minute and flew from Vancouver to Halifax. Ricardo Whynder picked him up at the Stanfield International Airport in Halifax on October 10, 2013, in a rented black Dodge Charger. Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Whynder spent much of the day together. Mr. Whynder had telephone communication with Mr. Sudds through the day.

Arrangements were made to meet Mr. Sudds in the Burger King parking lot located off Young St. that night. Sometime after 8:30 PM Mr. Sudds arrived with a friend via taxi. He was not expecting to be long. He got into the front passenger seat of the Charger. Mr. Whynder was the driver and Mr. Glasgow was in the back seat. Mr. Whynder drove directly to the Africville Road (which is a very secluded part of the city). Sometime during that short drive, or upon arrival at the Africville Rd., Mr. Sudds suffered blunt force injury to his head.

Matthew Sudds ended up outside of the car and was shot in the arm and neck, and was also shot in the head, with a 40 calibre Smith and Wesson pistol. He died as a result of the gunshot to his head. Mr. Glasgow either shot Mr. Sudds or was a party to Mr. Sudds’s shooting and was aware Mr. Sudds would die as a result of being shot. Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Whynder left Mr. Sudds’s body in the brush on Africville Road, where it was unlikely to be discovered right away. The next day, October 11, 2013, Mr. Glasgow and Mr.

Whynder had airline tickets purchased for them and together they flew out of Halifax at approximately 6:00 PM. In Toronto they deplaned together and were captured on video hugging each other and shaking hands before they parted ways. Mr. Whynder stayed in Toronto and Mr. Glasgow continued along to Vancouver. They continued to communicate and have contact for a period of time after the shooting. Matthew Sudds [ 4 ] Matthew Sudds was 24 years old when he was shot and killed. He lived with his mother, Darlene Sudds. They had a very close relationship.

He is described by those who knew him as an upbeat and humorous person. He was involved in the drug trade and spent time in a federal correctional facility at the same time as Mr. Whynder. In and around the time of the murder, Mr. Sudds and Mr. Whynder were spending time together. There was no clear motive for the shooting. Victim Impact Statements [ 5 ] A number of victim impact statements were provided to, and/or read to, the court. They were both sad and helpful.

Some excerpts include the following: Kim Currie The Biggest impact of losing Matt, to me is watching my closest friend, Mathews mother Darlene living with the aftermath of losing her only child. In the last 10 years, I have held her tight watching her cry herself to sleep, waking her from her terrible Dreams talking on the phone for hours to calm her and comfort her or just encouraging her to take one day at a time, one task at a time. Mathew was taking from us way to soon, and now, we the family are left with the sadness and Heart Break everyday and for the rest of our lives.

This is so unfair to us and it really hurts. Cynthia Rigby After Matthew’s murder, I developed anxiety and depression. I became dysregulated and unstable. Being 4 months pregnant, the extreme change in behavior and emotional regulation caused many concerns for my doctors. I was considered high risk. I was asked to stop working at 5 months pregnant, due to complications occurring as a result of stress. My mental and physical health were suffering, and I went into early labor and delivery. Postpartum life, with his namesake, Maddie, was extremely difficult.

I began attending therapy because my already fragile emotional state escalated even more than it was during pregnancy. My relationships with family and friends were destroyed because I could not regulate or even identify my feelings. My husband had to take additional paternity leave in order to keep myself and Maddie safe. I was unable to function in day-to-day activities. …

Matthew’s murder impacted my professional life. Being a Learning Centre teacher who works with at-risk and vulnerable students in Halifax’s inner city schools, my regrets of not being able to prevent Matthew’s story from ending differently caused me to feel insecure and unsuitable for a job I loved. I looked at my work differently. I changed my practices. I withdrew from building relationships with students, because I did not feel I would have any positive impact on the child. I could not prevent children from growing up to make the same choices that Ricardo and Devlin made, and that caused me angst.

Kyle Sarka And for me, there has been tremendous anger turned to sorrow, which has eventually turned to emptiness. So much has happened in my life that I would have loved to share with Matthew. He was the keeper of my thoughts, the guardian of my closest secrets. People always thought when we were younger that we maybe brothers, and although we were not, we were the closest you could ever get to it. There is a void in my life that was once solidly filled by Matthew that will ever remain gaping, a constant reminder of what may have been… there is no replacing Matthew Sudds.

Darlene Sudds Grief never leaves, it is always with you. I still fight through my grief for Matthew everyday, it has made me a different person and so much stronger than ever to be able to fight everyday for the peace and justice Matthew and I deserve. They have destroyed not only my life but my family’s lives too. Life without Matthew will never be the same. They stole not only Matthews’ life but many more generations of life to have been. [As appears in originals.] Sentencing Provisions [ 6 ] The Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (the “ Code ”), sets out the punishment for murder.

Section 235 of the Code states: 235 Everyone who commits first-degree murder or second-degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. [ 7 ] Subsection (2) states: For the purposes of

Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this

section is a minimum punishment. [ 8 ] Relevant also are subsections 745(

a) and (c), which state: 745. Subject to

section 745.1, the sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be (

a) in respect of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first-degree murder, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served twenty-five years of the sentence; … (

c) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second-degree murder, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served at least ten years of the sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to

section 745.4; … [ 9 ] Sections 745.2 and 745.4 state: 745.2 Subject to

section 745.3, where a jury finds an accused guilty of second degree murder, the judge presiding at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question: You have found the accused guilty of second degree murder and the law requires that I now pronounce a sentence of imprisonment for life against the accused. Do you wish to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole?

You are not required to make any recommendation but if you do, your recommendation will be considered by me when I am determining whether I should substitute for the ten year period, which the law would otherwise require the accused to serve before the accused is eligible to be considered for release on parole, a number of years that is more than ten but not more than twenty-five. … 745.4 Subject to

section 745.5, at the time of the sentencing under

section 745 of an offender who is convicted of second degree murder, the judge who presided at the trial of the offender or, if that judge is unable to do so, any judge of the same court may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made pursuant to

section 745.2, by order, substitute for ten years a number of years of imprisonment (being more than ten but not more than twenty-five) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances. [ 10 ]

Section 746 states:

746. In calculating the period of imprisonment served for the purposes of

section 745, 745.1, 745.4, 745.5 or 745.6, there shall beincluded any time spent in custody between (

a) in the case of a sentence of imprisonment for life after July 25, 1976, the day on which the person was arrested and taken intocustody in respect of the offence for which that person was sentenced to imprisonment for life Crown Recommendation [11] The Crown says that Mr. Glasgow’s parole ineligibility date for the second-degree murder conviction should be set at between15 and 20 years. Defence Recommendation [12] Mr. Glasgow says that his parole ineligibility should be set at between 10 and 15 years. Parole eligibility for second-degree murder [13]

Section 718 of the Code sets out considerations that must be applied when determining sentence. They include denouncingunlawful conduct, deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences, separating offenders from society wherenecessary, assisting in rehabilitation of offenders, providing reparations for harm done to victims or to the community, promoting a senseof responsibility in offenders, and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community. [14] In R. v.

Shropshire, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, the court considered parole eligibility (or ineligibility).Iacobucci J. said, for the court: 23. The only difference in terms of punishment between first- and second-degree murder is the duration of parole ineligibility. Thisclearly indicates that parole ineligibility is part of the “punishment” and thereby forms an important element of sentencing policy. Assuch, it must be concerned with deterrence, whether general or specific.

The jurisprudence of this Court is clear that deterrence is a well-established objective of sentencing policy. … [15] The court rejected several proposed standards for determining when a period of ineligibility of more than 10 years would beappropriate on a sentence for second degree murder. Iacobucci J. continued: 27.

In my opinion, a more appropriate standard, which would better reflect the intentions of Parliament, can be stated in this manner: asa general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that,according to the criteria enumerated in then s. 744, the offender should wait a longer period before having his [or her] suitability to bereleased into the general public assessed.

To this end, an extension of the period of parole ineligibility would not be “unusual”, althoughit may well be that, in the median number of cases, a period of 10 years might still be awarded. …

Section 742(b) [as it was] of the Code provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment for second degree murder shall not beeligible for parole “until he has served at least ten years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-fiveyears, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to

section 744”. In permitting a sliding scale of parole ineligibility, Parliament intendedto recognize that, within the category of second degree murder, there will be a broad range of seriousness reflecting varying degrees ofmoral culpability. As a result, the period of parole ineligibility for second degree murder will run anywhere between a minimum of 10years and a maximum of 25, the latter being equal to that prescribed for first degree murder. The mere fact that the median periodgravitates toward the 10-year minimum does not, ipso facto, mean that any other period of time is “unusual”. … 31.

If the objective of s. 744 is to give the trial judge an element of discretion in sentencing to reflect the fact that with a second degreemurder there is both a range of seriousness and varying degrees of moral culpability, then it is incorrect to start from the proposition thatthe sentence must be the statutory minimum unless there are unusual circumstances. As discussed supra, a preferable approach wouldbe to view the 10-year period as a minimum contingent on what the “judge deems fit in the circumstances”, the content of this “fitness”being informed by the criteria listed in s.744.

As held in other Canadian jurisdictions, the power to extend the period of paroleineligibility need not be sparingly used. ... 34. On another note, I do not find that permitting trial judges to extend the period of parole ineligibility usurps or impinges upon thefunction of the parole board. I am cognizant of the fact that, upon expiry of the period of parole ineligibility, there is no guarantee ofrelease into the public.

At that point, it is incumbent upon the parole board to assess the suitability of such release, and in doing so it isguided by the legislative objectives of the parole system. … However, it is clear that the parole board is not the only participant in theparole process. All it is designed to do is, within the parameters defined by the judiciary, decide whether an offender can be released. Akey component of those parameters is the determination of when the period of parole eligibility (i.e. when the parole board cancommence its administrative review function) starts to run.

This is the manner in which the system is geared to function - - withcomplementary yet distinct input from both the judiciary and the parole administrators. … [Emphasis added.] [16] In R. v. Hartling, 2011 NSSC 506, affirmed 2013 NSCA 51, the court endorsed the following relevant considerations for a s.745.4 analysis:

[6] I refer to a decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, of R. v. Doyle, (NL SC), 2003 NLSCTD 20,affirmed at 2004 NLCA 64, 9 where Chief Justice Green outlined a number of relevant considerations in applying the factors under s.745.4. Along with the principles of sentencing which I have just outlined, he said at paragraph 31: [31] These considerations can be restated for present purposes as follows: (

a) Character of the Offender: (

i) general background; (ii)previous criminal record and lifestyle; (iii) medical and psychiatric history; (iv) capacity for future dangerousness; (

v) attitude, including remorse and victim empathy; (vi) motivation; (vii) mitigating circumstances, such as the entry of a guilty plea, and cooperation with the investigation, (

b) Nature of the Offence (

i) nature of the crime, (ii) victim impact, (

c) Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence (

i) the manner in which the death was caused, including the infliction of any gratuitous, excessive or sadistic violence, (ii) explanation by the offender, or any lack of explanation, (iii) planning and deliberation, (iv) influence, if any, of alcohol or drugs. Character of the Offender [17] As detailed in the Crown brief, Mr. Glasgow’s criminal record is comprised of the following:

Offence Offence date Sentence Sentence date cc.334(b) - Youth Jan 9, 1999 3 mos probation Nov 20, 2000 cc.267(a)- Youth May 29, 2002 3 mos open custody June 6, 2002 cc.95(a) – youth Possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm May 29, 2002 3 mos concurrent June 6, 2002 cc.90(2)(a) – Youth Carrying a concealed weapon May 29, 2002 3 mos concurrent June 6, 2002 cc.733.1(1) – Youth Breach of Probation Oct 30, 2002 275 days custody and community supervision - concurrent July 15, 2003 cc.117.1(1)- Youth Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order Oct 30, 2002 275 days custody and community supervision - concurrent July 15, 2003 cc.90 – Youth Carrying a concealed weapon Oct 30, 2002 275 days custody and community supervision - concurrent July 15, 2003 CDSA 5(2) Possession for the purpose of trafficking (conviction from British Columbia) 6 mos CSO April 26, 2005 cc.270(1)(

a) Assault Peace Officer July 29, 2005 3 mos concurrent April 19, 2006 cc.268 Aggravated Assault July 6, 2005 4 years, 6 months July 24, 2006 cc.811 Breach of recognizance Oct 6, 2009 - Oct 22, 2009 30 days intermittent Dec 14, 2009 cc. 811 Breach of recognizance April 8, 2010- May 11, 2010 21 days concurrent Dec 8, 2010 cc. 811 Breach of recognizance May 18, 2010 - July 1, 2010 21 days concurrent Dec 8, 2010 cc. 145 Breach of recognizance May 18, 2010-July 1, 2010 21 days concurrent Dec 8, 2010 cc. 348 (1)(

b) Break and Enter (conviction from Ontario) 55 days, 1 year probation - concurrent Jan 15, 2014

cc. 134(3) Breach of recognizance (conviction from Ontario) 55 days, 1 year probation – concurrent Jan 15, 2014 cc. 95(1) Possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm (conviction from Ontario) 36 mos (given credit for 24 most pre-sentence custody) Nov 8, 2017 cc.117.01 Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order (conviction from Ontario) 8 mos consecutive (given credit for 4 most pre- sentence custody) Nov 8, 2017 cc.99(1)(

a) weapons trafficking (conviction from Ontario) 22 mos concurrent Nov 8, 2017 cc. 117.01(1) Possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order (conviction from Ontario) 8 mos concurrent Nov 8, 2017 cc.249(1)(

a) Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle $300 fine, 18-moth driving prohibition Oct 24, 2018 [As appears in original.] [ 18 ] The Crown described the 2005 aggravated assault as involving Mr. Glasgow shooting another man five times with a .22-caliber handgun. IRCA [ 19 ] In R. v. Anderson, 2021 NSCA 62 , the court clarified how Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs) are to be used by a sentencing judge, and confirmed the individualized process of sentencing.

The court noted that the parties agreed on the value of such assessments on sentencing, and went on to discuss their utility in detail: [115] Sentencing is an inherently individualized process. It is a fundamental duty of a sentencing judge to pay close attention to the circumstances of all offenders in order to craft a sentence that is genuinely fit and proper.

What is required in the sentencing of Indigenous offenders applies to offenders of African descent who are also entitled to “an individualized assessment of all of the relevant factors and circumstances, including the status and life experiences…” [116] Sentencing judges play a significant role in how offenders are punished and rehabilitated through the criminal justice system.

As in the case of Indigenous offenders, they decide whether an offender of African descent is incarcerated or receives a sentence that can play “a stronger role in restoring a sense of balance to the offender, victim, and community, and in preventing future crime”.

Notwithstanding that sentencing judges are far downstream from the forces that have contributed to bringing offenders before them, they are influential at a critical juncture: they determine if incarceration and separation from society is the course to be followed or if a remedial option can serve the objectives of sentencing and achieve a just outcome. [117] The deference afforded sentencing judges by appeal courts is intended to respect the individualization of sentences “both in method and outcome”.

Friesen held that: [38] …Sentencing judges have considerable scope to apply the principles of sentencing in any manner that suits the features of a

particular case. Different methods may even be required to account properly for relevant systemic and background factors ( Ipeelee , at para. 59). Similarly, a particular combination of aggravating and mitigating factors may call for a sentence that lies…outside any range. (cites omitted) [118] The “method” employed for sentencing African Nova Scotian offenders should carefully consider the systemic and background factors detailed in an IRCA. It may amount to an error of law for a sentencing judge to ignore or fail to inquire into these factors.

A judge does not have to be satisfied a causal link has been established “between the systemic and background factors and commission of the offence…” These principles parallel the requirements in law established by the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to Gladue factors in the sentencing of Indigenous offenders.

As with Indigenous offenders, while an African Nova Scotian offender can decide not to request an IRCA, a sentencing judge cannot preclude comparable information being offered, or fail to consider an offender’s background and circumstances in relation to the systemic factors of racism and marginalization. To do so may amount to an error of law. [119] As in Mr. Anderson’s case, an IRCA can deliver the specific information relevant to the judge’s obligation to determine an individualized sentence. However it is the content not the form that is critical.

While the required information does not have to be presented in an IRCA, like Gladue reports for Indigenous offenders, IRCAs deliver the “indispensable” content comprehensively and efficiently. IRCAs have become a familiar method for placing systemic and individualized information about African Nova Scotian offenders before sentencing courts in Nova Scotia. [120] IRCAs can support the use of rehabilitation in sentencing, “One of the main objectives of Canadian criminal law…” and “one of the fundamental moral values that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world…”.

IRCAs can provide a foundation on which to build alternatives to incarceration for Black offenders and reduce the over-reliance on imprisonment. [121] As the ANSDPAD Coalition asked this Court to recognize, the social context information supplied by an IRCA can assist in: • Contextualizing the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. • Revealing the existence of mitigating factors or explaining their absence. • Addressing aggravating factors and offering a deeper explanation for them. • Informing the principles of sentencing and the weight to be accorded to denunciation and deterrence. • Identifying rehabilitative and restorative options for the offender and appropriate opportunities for reparations by the offender to the victim and the community. • Strengthening the offender’s engagement with their community. • Informing the application of the parity principle. “Courts must ensure that a formalistic approach to parity in sentencing does not undermine the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e)”. • Reducing reliance on incarceration. [122] The Crown’s roadmap analysis aligns with the ANSDPAD Coalition’s holistic application for IRCAs.

It is an approach this Court endorses. IRCAs can enrich and guide the application of sentencing principles to Black offenders. The systemic factors described by the IRCA in Mr. Anderson’s case and his experiences as an African Nova Scotian navigating racism and marginalization are not unique. IRCAs should be available to assist judges in any sentencing involving an offender of African descent.

IRCAs can ensure judges, when engaged in “one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process in Canada”, are equipped to view the offender through a sharply focused lens. [123] In explaining their sentences, judges should make more than passing reference to the background of an African Nova Scotian offender. It may not be enough to simply describe the offender’s history in great detail. It should be possible on appeal for the court to determine, based on the record or the judge’s reasons, that proper attention was given to the circumstances of the offender.

Where this cannot be discerned, appellate intervention may be warranted. [124] The role of IRCAs in the sentencing of African Nova Scotian offenders will serve to enhance the credibility of the criminal justice system in the eyes of a broad and diverse public by increasing the likelihood of the sentences imposed being seen as just and appropriate.

Respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society is not achieved by putting disproportionate numbers of Black and Indigenous offenders behind bars having left unaddressed, in the context of sentencing, the deeply entrenched historical disadvantage and systemic racism that more than likely had a hand in bringing them before the courts. [125] The historic discrimination and racism to which African Nova Scotians have been subjected is antithetical to societal values of equality and inclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Nasogaluak , addressing, in the context of sentencing, the impact of a Charter breach, recognized the role of the Charter in the sentencing regime: “A sentence cannot be “fit” if it does not respect the fundamental values enshrined in the Charter ”. This principle is to be applied purposively. The sentencing process as a whole must accord with Charter values, including the right to equality before and under the law.

Differential treatment may be needed in order to serve the goals of substantive equality otherwise how are historic inequalities confronted and addressed, ongoing systemic discrimination ameliorated, and continued disadvantage avoided? [ 20 ] The IRCA in this case details a tumultuous upbringing for Mr. Glasgow. In short, he became entrenched in street life and crime and was left to fend for himself by the age of 15. I will quote the assessment in detail. The assessment reviewed Mr. Glasgow’s family background and his community and residential circumstances:

Family Background Devlin Glasgow is a 36 year old African Nova Scotian male. He is the son of Hank (Norman) Glasgow, a Black man from North Preston, and Kathleen McBride, a white woman from British Columbia (BC). He shared that his father has been absent for most of his life, and he identified that he has a very close relationship with his mother. Mr. Glasgow was born in British Columbia… … Mr. Glasgow stated that he has never met his maternal grandparents, and therefore does not have a relationship with them. He has nine siblings. Two of his siblings share the same mother and father as him.

For his other siblings: his oldest brother shares the same mother; and his other six siblings share the same father. There is a range in his closeness to his brothers and sisters: he stated that he is close with four of his siblings; and two of his siblings he can’t remember their names. Mr. Glasgow reported that he does not have any children. Relationships Mr. Glasgow has had a number of significant relationships in his life such as: mother, paternal grandmother Gracie Mae “Momma”, uncle Man (Vincent Glasgow), Wayne Taylor, Vincent Jones, and a more challenging relationship with his father.

As stated he is very close to his mother and feels that he can talk to her about anything. He expressed that he has always been very close to his mother, even when she left and moved to BC with his youngest brother. He stated he understood why his mother felt she had to move; his mother did not want to lose her youngest son to “the street life.” Mr.

Glasgow shared “my youngest brother has never been in trouble, he has done really good and he’s a plummer out there.” He indicated that his mother asked him to go, but he was not interested at the time, and he knew she could not really afford to pay for them all to move. Mr. Glasgow recognized that the family did not have much money, he said his mother was on social assistance. Although they did not have much in terms of financial resources, Mr. Glasgow did not feel like they struggled as a family. He shared that he noticed a difference once his mother left, “it was a struggle.” … Mr.

Glasgow and uncle Man share a very special bond. Uncle Man registered him for boxing, and he is thankful for his influence. He shared that uncle Man has been in his “life since day one” and wants to support him even during his court date. However, Mr. Glasgow does not want his family present for his sentencing as he does not want them, “to see how the system is dealing with me.” He is thankful for what uncle Man has done for him. It was uncle Man who introduced him to Wayne and Taylor Gordon (Citadel Boxing). Mr. Glasgow remembers the Gordon family supporting him and his brothers.

Devlin and his family would sometimes go to Taylor’s house for supper and the Gordon’s often paid for his boxing gear. Devlin shared that when Taylor’s wife passed away, he went to her funeral. Mr. Glasgow asked the assessors to contact Wayne as one of his collaterals (Note: Mr. Taylor Gordon is deceased). … In terms of a more challenging relationship, Mr. Glasgow shared at the age of 22-23 he wanted to try and connect with his father. He felt he wanted a male role model in his life and realized he was “being raised by the streets.” Mr.

Glasgow was very angry at his father for not being there for him, he said “It’s not like we moved from Lahey to China, he could have seen us. When I was in my mid-teens I was really angry with him, I wish he would have just manned-up. He never explained his situation.” He stated his father seemed to be involved in some of his other siblings' lives, and that he wishes he would have been there for some of his teenage years. As indicated Mr. Glasgow has had a number of people in his life that have impacted him in a positive way.

Although he shared with the assessors that he is no longer angry at his father, it is evident there are some unresolved answers and emotions as a result of his father being absent. Community Context and Residential History … Mr. Glasgow spent most of his life living in Uniacke Square. This community was established through the dislocation of Africville residents between 1964-1970. Many of the descendants of Africville were moved into by the city of Halifax and forced to live in public housing, in Uniacke Square and Mulgrave Park (National Film Board of Canada, 1991).

Located in the North End of Halifax, Uniacke Square has been often described as a low income, impoverished community, with a high presence of gun violence and drugs. There are many Black organizations that are located in Uniacke Square and the North End Halifax such as, the Delmore “Buddy” Daye Learning Institute, the Black Educators Association, and 902 ManUp. As a public housing complex, the community and its residents were not prioritized and often neglected: Uniacke Square became one of the post-relocation neighbourhoods that fell victim to unkept government promises of employment and education programs.

While the Halifax Department of Development claimed their relocation efforts in the 1960s were to offer the residents who lived under the slum conditions of Africville a “better living”, the poverty and unemployment of an evicted populous and abandoned social programs gave areas like Uniacke Square an unfortunate reputation of crime, violence and civic neglect (Hamlyn, 2017, para 1). … His family got their own place in public housing, on Lahey Road in the North End of Dartmouth. Mr.

Glasgow was exposed to domestic violence, and this violence led to the separation of the family unit when he was seven or eight years old. He remembers that his mother left the father after a serious abusive event and that they had to live in Bryony House, a shelter for abused women and their children, for close to half a year.

From Bryony House, his mother moved into another public housing complex in Uniacke Square. He lived in Uniacke Square from ages 8 - 23. For most of this time he lived in the same location, until his mother moved back to BC and Mr. Glasgow was left in the residence at 15 years old. He stated that he and two of his brothers spent most of their time in the streets, getting into trouble; Mr. Glasgow and one of his brothers were in and out of jail [youth detention centres] frequently.

He suggested that his mother could not control them, and took the youngest brother to BC with her to get him away from Uniacke Square and prevent him from going down the same path. At 15 years old, Mr. Glasgow lived by himself for six to seven months in his mother’s place unbeknownst to public housing authorities as he stated: “housing didn’t know mom left.” From there, he moved to a basement suit[e] in the neighbourhood where the rent was more affordable. When he was approximately 23 or 24 he moved to Vancouver with a girlfriend and her son.

He indicated that this move was motivated by his desire to change his life path and get away from the streets. He noted that this relationship did not last and they broke up within a year, at which time he moved in with his mother for a month or two until he was stable enough to get his own place. At 27 years old, he stated that he moved to Toronto by himself. He went to Toronto to visit family and decided to stay. He shared that Toronto would be his last known address as he was arrested in this city in 2016 and has been in jail ever since. [ 21 ] The assessment went on to review aspects of Mr.

Glasgow’s educational, employment, and financial history: Educational Experiences … It was in grade eight that Devlin’s life started to head down the wrong path: he began using cannabis; skipping classes; getting into fights; and “hustling in the streets”. Devlin attended Saint Patrick’s High School for grade 10 and the beginning of grade 11. This was the feeder school for his previous school and therefore had similar diversity in the student population. He recalled experiencing racism from white teachers, and stated that he got into a lot of fights with white peers. He reported that he was suspended often.

Devlin indicated that he left high school in grade 11 because he went to jail. Mr. Glasgow shared that he completed his General Educational Development (GED) while incarcerated. He believes this was in 2006. Also while in custody, he has completed additional courses and programs: ➢ Forklift ➢ Backhoe Machine ➢ Anger Management ➢ Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHIMS) ➢ First Aid ➢ Construction work program (that provides the skills required for work in the field) Currently, Mr. Glasgow is not involved in any programs.

He stated that programs are unavailable to him because he is on a federal remand awaiting sentencing. Mr. Glasgow highlighted that he would engage in programming if offered to him. He said that he has completed the high intensity program while in custody at a jail in British Columbia, and is receptive to doing it again. He stated that he found this program beneficial: “It helped me realize where I went wrong.” Mr. Glasgow believes that BC jails have more programs. He expressed that this specific jail offers an electrician program, and that being an electrician has always been a goal for him.

Employment and Financial Situation … Mr. Glasgow and a former girlfriend moved to BC to get away from his lifestyle in Uniacke Square. He successfully worked full-time hanging drywall for a business for two and a half years. He enjoyed this employment, but a single event dramatically changed his life course. It was an experience he had with the police that negatively impacted him. He shared that he was pulled over and charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. By his account, he only had “a couple grams of weed” that he was using and not selling. The end result was that he pled guilty to possession.

In hindsight, he recognizes that this could have been a “minor road block”, however he allowed this event to “pull [me back] into the life… Instead of changing, I went to the far extreme.” [Emphasis added.] [ 22 ] As to Mr. Glasgow’s medical history, substance use, and background of traumatic events and experiences, the assessment states: Health Mr. Glasgow reported that his physical health is good. He stated that he was once shot in the face, and indicated that the bullet is still lodged in his head. Mr.

Glasgow said that the bullet “bruised the part of the brain where seizures come from.” According to him, the doctors gave him the choice to have the bullet removed (by surgery) or leave it where it was. He opted for the latter. This injury did cause him to have seizures. He stated that he was offered epilepsy medication, however, after reviewing the side effects, he declined. He also did not feel comfortable taking medication for epilepsy as he was not diagnosed with this condition. Mr. Glasgow stated that between 2010 to 2016, he suffered from approximately 10 seizures.

There has been no more seizure activity since 2016, and he is unsure what to credit for this reduction. In terms of his mother’s health, he shared that her health is currently compromised. He mentioned a few

times that he hopes to serve his sentence in a prison in British Columbia to be close to his mother. Mr. Glasgow believes that his mental health is also good. He reported that he does not typically feel depressed, experience anxiety, and has not had thoughts of self harm. He does however feel stressed at different periods of his life. He recognizes that he will be serving a life sentence and does not let this knowledge impact his mental health. Mr. Glasgow does not know where his mental health strength comes from.

When asked about how he is managing such a positive mental health attitude, even though he expects to be incarcerated for many years, he stated “I can’t let the system break me. They would love to see me broken right now on meds.” Substance Use Mr. Glasgow reported that he began using cannabis when he was 11 years old. He recollected his first experience with this substance: “I was in the streets, one of the older guys threw a roach away, and me and my friends hit it.” Mr.

Glasgow initially used cannabis occasionally, and by the time he was 14 years old he was using this drug daily (every day that he could other than during his periods of incarceration - and this was due to inaccessibility). He stated that he quit using cannabis when he was approximately 26 or 27 years old. Mr. Glasgow indicated that he has not used any hard drugs. Impacts of Trauma and Loss Mr. Glasgow has experienced many events and circumstances that have been traumatic for him. Being exposed to domestic violence had a significant impact on his child development and sense of security.

He stated that there was constant loud arguing between his parents, and from his memory he witnessed his father beat his mother on two or three occasions. Mr. Glasgow described the last time that his father harmed his mother as the worst: “He was beating her up in a corner, stomping on her, I hit him up over the head with a picture frame, and he fell off to the corner.”… Mr. Glasgow survived two shootings months apart. It is evident from the information that Mr. Glasgow shared about his lifestyle, that he has lived a risky life.

He views community violence as normal and somewhat expected in his disenfranchised community. Although he survived both shootings, it could have ended differently.

Recent statistics emphasize the magnitude of risk of death by gun violence for racialized males: … in 2021, more Black men ages 15 to 24 died in gun homicides than from unintentional injuries, suicide, heart disease, COVID-19, cancer, nonfirearm homicides, diabetes, congenital abnormalities, and chronic respiratory diseases, police shootings, cerebrovascular diseases, anemias, sepsis, influenza and pneumonia, and HIV combined . (Nguyen & Drane, 2023, para. 8) Although this literature is American, based on similar contexts of gun homicides among African Nova Scotian men in Halifax and the surrounding areas, it is applicable.

When Mr. Glasgow was 23 years old, he was shot in the face. This is the bullet that was referenced previously that is still lodged in his head. He suggested that it may be difficult for others to understand that he did not fall to the ground when he was shot. He was able to walk and seek out assistance: “Felt like I got sucker punched. I walked to the gas station, my face was leaking of blood.” He went to the hospital for his injuries and had negative interactions with the police that were there. Mr.

Glasgow stated that he left the hospital within six to seven hours because he felt the healthcare staff were not providing adequate services. A couple months after he was shot in the face, he was shot in the groin area. By his memory, the bullet went right through his body. He recalled that it was really painful and there was a lot of blood.

When asked by the assessors how he felt about being shot twice within a short time span, he stated, “I [was] in this lifestyle and I have to accept what comes with it.” [Emphasis added.] Adverse Childhood Experiences The traumatic events that occur in a child’s life are known as Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). These traumatic events impact the health and development of a child into adulthood. ACEs include neglect, abuse, and household dysfunction, which can result in the physical, mental, and social health challenges of adults.

It is important to note that a person who scores four or more ACEs is considered to be at a higher risk of significant health complications later in life (Trauma-Informed Care Implementation Resource Center, 2020). It’s equally important to note that Black children are disproportionately exposed to ACEs (Hicks et al., 2020). Mr. Glasgow experienced the following ACEs: 1. Physical neglect - His father was absent from most of his childhood/adolescence 2. Emotional neglect - His father was not there for his emotional needs and social development 3.

Domestic violence - Exposure to violence in the household; his father was abusive towards his mother 4. Divorce - His parents separated when he was a young child. 5. Substance use - He shared that both of his parents used substances when he was a child. The pair of ACEs refers to the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and adverse community environments. The adverse childhood experiences that Mr. Glasgow has endured are evident in the list and chart above. Additionally, for Mr.

Glasgow, these adverse community environments: financial hardships; community instability; discrimination and racism; limited opportunities; poor

housing; and community violence, can be considered the root causes of his adverse childhood experiences. In order for Mr. Glasgow to be successful, these root causes need to be addressed. Involvement with the Criminal Justice System Mr. Glasgow stated that he has been involved in the criminal justice system since he was 12 years old. He was candid that he has been entangled in the street lifestyle. Mr. Glasgow stated that being from Uniacke Square he has always had access to a gun since he was 13 or 14 years old, although he did not necessarily own one or have it in his possession.

There were times when he accessed a gun for protection, and sometimes wore a bulletproof vest. [ 23 ] Finally, the assessment reviewed the comments of various individuals in Mr. Glasgow’s life: Collateral Contacts Ms. Kathleen McBride, Devlin’s Mother Ms. McBride is the mother of Devlin. She indicated that she had “a great relationship, I got along with Devlin, he was a great kid. He did good in school, he was creative, strong, and a master of everything.” She blamed the fact the family moved from Lahey road, to Uniacke Square, for contributing to the family demise.

She said it was not her choice to move there and was able to see a change in her boys almost immediately. She said before they moved to Uniacke Square, “we were going to a Pentecostal Church as a family.” Ms. McBride indicated they lived in Uniacke Square for seven years, and as a white woman she found it difficult. She stated that when they lived in Uniacke Square she became involved in drugs and alcohol. She shared that, I was an alcoholic for nearly 50 years. I was introduced to crack cocaine in 1994 by my husband who was a crackhead. I didn’t know he was a crackhead.

In 1996 I left. and 2005 is my new clean date. I don’t even smoke cigarettes. This speaks to the home environment which Mr. Glasgow was exposed to. She described Uniacke Square as a place “covered by generational curses. Where there is crime, drugs, and they [people living in Uniacke Square] keep the liquor store going.” Ms. McBride feels her children changed dramatically as they integrated more into the community. She indicated that his father was not around and “Devlin was influenced by St. Pat’s. The teaching started early on the street for my children.

There are generational groomers on the street and my boys saw them as heroes. There were not many fathers around in the community.” … His mother mentioned that when speaking with Devlin recently over the phone, he said that he wished she would have brought him to BC when she moved. She shared with the assessors that he was not ready to leave the streets at the time. Vincent Glasgow, Devlin’s Uncle … Reflecting on his perspective for Devlin’s current situation, he reported, “I didn’t see him going in that direction… He is a good guy that was led down the wrong path.

The streets will lead anyone down the wrong path.” Vincent stated that the last time he spoke with his nephew was sometime in between 2015 - 2017. With respect to future goals for success, he suggested: “He needs to be stable, get a good job, and pick a different [social] group.” Vincent Jones, African Nova Scotian Student Support Worker … When talking about Devlin, Mr. Jones remembers some of his anger that he had built up inside, from watching his mother being beaten on a regular basis by his father. He said, “I would sometimes go to Devlin’s home and let him come to the house where he could feel safe.

I was an automatic support for the kids”. Mr. Jones really feels “the community has failed our kids by not addressing the issue of drugs, and violence.” He slowly saw Mr. Glasgow withdrawing from school life, and going towards the street life. Mr. Jones shared, “I knew the situation wasn’t safe and the trauma that Devlin saw, seeing his mother get bashed in was hard on him”. Wayne Gordon, Boxing Coach Mr. Wayne Gordon was one of the boxing coaches for Mr. Glasgow. He remembered Mr.

Glasgow and his two brothers came to the gym, Citadel Boxing Club (owned by his father Taylor Gordon-who is since deceased) from the late 1990’s until about 1997. Mr. Gordon indicated that “the boxing program was a revolving door as many kids came in and out. It was a safe sanctuary and gave opportunities to kids to compete and travel. Most were from single parent homes.” Mr. Gordon described the relationship that his father Wayne Gordon had with Mr. Glasgow’s family: My father took a liking to the family… he would freely give them money and buy groceries for them. He had a lot of compassion for this family.

He knew their mom was a single mother and he really wanted to help them.

Mr. Gordon was not aware of the household dynamics or the challenges in the home. He was happy that his family was able to help Mr. Glasgow's family. Mr. Gordon indicated that Mr. Glasgow won quite a few of his fights and even won a National title. He shared that “when Devlin turned 16 he stopped boxing because another kid came in that started to perform better than him.” Mr. Gordon expressed disappointment in Mr. Glasgow leaving the gym, as he felt the club invested so much time into him… Mr.

Gordon shared that his gym provided Devlin with a free membership as well as boxing gloves and other sporting equipment. …He remembers that his family lost contact with Devlin when he was about 16 years old, after his departure from the gym. He recognizes that the gym can act as a crime prevention for youth such as Devlin, and it is unfortunate that he did not continue in this extra curricular activity.

He saw the gym as a form of prevention and believes that, “incarceration does not rehabilitate people and that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.” [ 24 ] The assessment concluded: Concluding Remarks and Recommendations … We offer the following specific observations and recommendations: ● Mr. Glasgow would benefit from accessing counselling from a Black therapist that can relate to his cultural and lived experiences. Trauma-informed approaches are ideal. It would be beneficial if this counselling started while he is incarcerated and continues when he is released. ● Mr.

Glasgow has a significant history in the “street life” or has been incarcerated for substantial periods of his life. He would benefit from a Black male mentor that can support him while in custody, and through his reintegration into the community. Given Mr. Glasgow’s anticipated sentence, it is likely that an identified Black male mentor established now, may change throughout his lengthy incarceration. It would be ideal if there was an organization that supported the reintegration of Black men, so that his case file could be easily transferred and followed to maintain continuity. ● It is recommended that Mr.

Glasgow engages in programming to support his overall personal development. This requires intensive programs that focus on the unaddressed impact of his trauma and his personal challenges. There appears to be intensive programs in prison and this should be a priority for him. ● Mr. Glasgow would benefit from accessing courses to support his future career interests. He mentioned that he is interested in an electrician program that is available in an institution in British Columbia. ● Mr. Glasgow does not currently have an established network of people that can support his rehabilitation.

Depending on where he serves his sentence, connecting with organizations that can provide him with prosocial peer and professional groups would benefit him. In addition, it would be beneficial to determine his interest in sports such as boxing and provide opportunities where possible for training or coaching. Harshness of Pre-Trial Jail Conditions [ 25 ] As noted by Ms. Freeman, in R. v. Corner, 2018 ONSC 1529 , [2018] O.J.

No. 1186, reversed on other grounds, 2023 ONCA 509 , McKelvey J. discussed the reduction in parole ineligibility that might be available due to harsh pre-trial jail conditions: [49] A final issue raised by the defendant in mitigation is the fact that he has been incarcerated since his arrest at the Central East Correctional facility. This was a factor considered by Justice Boswell in R. v. Hong , supra . In dealing with the issue of parole eligibility for a defendant convicted of second degree murder, Justice Boswell states at para. 60, During Mr.

Hong’s time at CECC, he has been subjected to lockdowns for 266 days. The circumstances associated with pre-trial detention have long been accepted as a factor having the potential to mitigate sentence. I consider the number of lockdown days as a mitigating factor in Mr. Hong’s sentence. I do not suggest that it has strongly influenced me in terms of the ultimate sentence, but it is certainly one factor to consider, amongst others, in arriving at a fit and just sentence for Mr. Hong. He is not entitled to enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, obviously, given his mandatory life sentence.

The only meaningful way this factor can be accounted for is in relation to the appropriate period of parole ineligibility. [50] In the present case I do not have any evidence regarding the number of lockdown days at Central East Correctional Centre during Mr. Corner’s custody. I am aware, however, that the correctional centre was subject to some labour unrest which was especially noticeable during the course of pre-trial motions. During this time Mr. Corner was delivered to the courthouse late on numerous occasions.

I have no reason to doubt the defence submission that there were a large number of days where the facility was on lockdown. I agree with Justice Boswell that Mr. Corner is not entitled to enhanced credit for pre-trial custody and that the only meaningful way this factor can be accounted for is in relation to the appropriate period of parole eligibility. Like Justice Boswell I have considered this as a mitigating factor in Mr. Corner’s sentence but do not suggest that it has strongly influenced me in considering what is a fit and just sentence for Mr. Corner. [ 26 ] Mr.

Glasgow chose not to elicit any evidence as to where he has been housed since his arrest on October 1, 2019, or any specific details of his incarceration that could allow for anything akin to enhanced credit. Nonetheless, the Crown agrees that during COVID jail conditions were harsher than previously, and that, more recently, staffing issues have created harsher conditions for inmates remanded in Nova Scotia.

[ 27 ] Ms. Freeman also provided A Case Study of Diversity in Corrections: The Black Inmate Experience in Federal Penitentiaries Final Report , a study published under the auspices of the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator in 2014, where the authors discussed the return of black inmates to the community: Conditional Release 61. Almost all federal inmates will eventually return to the community. Temporary absences and parole, offer an important step in gradually and safely releasing offenders into the community.

A period of supervision in the community is safer than releasing offenders directly from prison at the end of a sentence without any period of community supervision. Grant rates for federal day parole and full parole have been on a downward trend since 2001/02 for all inmates. 62. According to Parole Board of Canada, statistics over the last 5 years (2007/08 to 2011/12) show that Black offenders have consistently been less likely than the general inmate population to be granted federal day or full parole (See Table 3).

Table 3: Grant Rates for Federal Day and Full Parole by Race (%) 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 5-year average Day Parole Black 66 62 58 54 55 58 Total 73 71 68 63 64 68 Full Parole Black 16 20 12 9 25 16 Total 20 21 18 17 23 20 Source: Parole Board of Canada: Performance Monitoring Report 2011/12 63. Over the 5-year period (2008/09 to 2012/13), Black offenders were as likely as the general inmate population to be released on statutory release or at warrant expiry. 64.

Over the past 10 years, Black inmates were consistently under-represented in those granted escorted temporary absences (ETAs) and unescorted temporary absences (ETAs). For example, in 2011/12, Black inmates represented 9.3% of the inmate population, but only 3.8% of those on an ETA and even more striking, only 1.6% of those on ETAs. This evidence supports reports from Black inmates who felt that they were not given access to ETAs and ETAs. Correctional Outcomes: Post discharge/release 65.

Surprisingly, while conditions and treatment seem to be more difficult or unfavourable for Black inmates, as a group they manage relatively well once released from prison. Over the last 5 years, (2007/08 – 2011/12), successful completion rates for both federal day and full parole were consistently higher for Black offenders. For example, in 2011/12, Black offenders had a successful completion rate for full parole of 83% compared to 79% for all offenders. Moreover, Black offenders were no more likely than all offenders to have their federal day or full parole revoked for a violent offence. 66.

Over the same time period, Black offenders were also consistently more likely than the overall offender population to successfully complete their statutory release supervision period. They were as likely as all other offenders to have their statutory release revoked for a violent offence. 67. Finally, post-warrant expiry provides an important measure of an offender’s ability, over the long-term, to sustain a crime-free life while in the community after completion of his/her sentence.

Black offenders were generally less likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence while on parole, statutory release or at warrant expiry. [ 28 ] Also provided by Ms. Freeman was an updated report, A Case Study of Diversity in Corrections: The Black Inmate Experience in Federal Penitentiaries Final Report UPDATE: 44th Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2016-2017 , which states: Updates on the Black Offender Experience in Federal Custody In 2013, the Office released “A Case Study of Diversity in Corrections: The Black Inmate Experience in Federal Penitentiaries.

" At that time, the Office reported that Black inmates comprised 9.5% of the inmate population while representing just 3% of the Canadian population. The report also noted that Black inmates were over-represented in maximum security and segregation, incurred a disproportionate number of institutional charges, and were more likely to be involved in incidents of use of force. Although CSC's response to the Office's report was positive overall, four years later very little appears to have changed for Black people in federal custody. Today, Black inmates currently comprise 8.6% of the total incarcerated population.

While the total number of Black inmates has decreased by 9% since the Office's 2013 study, the overall inmate population has also decreased (6.3%) over the same time period. Ontario continues to have the largest Black inmate population - nearly three times the number in the Quebec region (the region with the second largest Black inmate population).

The number of federally sentenced Black women has decreased by nearly 30% since the Office's 2013 study (55 in 2013 versus 39 in 2017). Similar to the 2013 study, Black women are primarily incarcerated for

Schedule II (drug) offences (54% in 2017). In 2017, almost one quarter of incarcerated Black women in Canadian penitentiaries were foreign nationals. These women will be deported upon completion of their sentence. As a group, Black inmates continue to have poorer outcomes on many important correctional indicators. In 2016-2017, Black inmates were: 1. More likely to classified as maximum security (nearly one-fifth compared to 14% of the total inmate population). 2. Over-represented in admissions to segregation (Black inmates represented 10.5% of admissions to segregation). 3.

Disproportionately involved in incidents of use of force (Black inmates represented 10.6% of offenders involved in a use of force incident). 4. More likely to be gang affiliated (Black inmates were nearly twice as likely as the total inmate population 22% versus 12% to be gang affiliated). [ 29 ] These reports detail the systemic racism suffered by federal inmates. Ms. Freeman says that this shows that Mr. Glasgow will serve harder time in a penitentiary because of his race. I agree that Mr.

Glasgow is not (necessarily) entitled to enhanced credit for pre- trial custody, but custodial conditions during COVID, the impact of understaffing on remanded inmates (about which I take judicial notice), and the documented systemic racism within federal institutions (about which the Crown made no comment), are appropriate factors to consider when determining the proper period of parole ineligibility. The nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission [ 30 ] Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Whynder, and Mr. Whynder and Mr.

Sudds, all communicated via cell phone in the time period leading up to October 10, 2013. Mr. Glasgow bought a ticket just before he flew from Vancouver to Halifax on October 9, 2013. He and Mr. Whynder spent at least part of October 10, 2013, together, and Mr. Whynder was in communication with Mr. Sudds. Mr. Sudds met the two men in the Burger King parking lot that night, not expecting a lengthy interaction, and got into the front seat of the Charger, with Mr. Glasgow in the back seat and Mr. Whynder driving. Mr. Sudds was then immediately driven to Africville Road. [ 31 ] Mr.

Sudds was shot and killed with a pistol outside of the vehicle in a deserted part of Africville Road. The interior of the vehicle was later found to contain gunshot residue. Mr. Sudds had a blunt force injury to his head. He was shot at least twice, once in the head. He was left in the bushes in a remote area of the city. Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Whynder left Halifax by plane the next day. They hugged and shook hands while saying goodbye in Toronto. Mr. Glasgow was convicted of second-degree murder, not planned and premeditated murder.

However, it is clear from the evidence heard at trial that something nefarious was afoot, and that Mr. Sudds was hit over the head, shot and killed very shortly after getting into the vehicle with Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Whynder. Recommendation by the jury [ 32 ] In accordance with s. 745.2, the court received the following recommendation from the jury in relation to Mr.

Glasgow’s parole ineligibility date: No recommendation: 5 Recommend 10 years before eligibility: 3 Recommend 15 years before eligibility: 2 Recommend 20 years before eligibility: 2 [ 33 ] Therefore, those seven of twelve jurors who chose to make a recommendation, suggested an average parole ineligibility date close to, or equalling, the 15-year range. Although I am not bound by the jury’s recommendation, I must consider it, which I have done. Range of Parole Ineligibility [ 34 ] The parties provided me with a number of cases considering specific ranges of parole ineligibility.

Within those cases are cited numerous other cases that consider specific ranges of parole ineligibility: [ 35 ] In R v. Nash, 2009 NBCA 7 , leave to appeal denied, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 131, Robertson J.A., for the court, discussed the ranges of sentencing imposed in second degree murder cases, and stated, at para. 54: ... Not only are these cases instructive, they provide support for a general thesis: more often than not, trial and sentencing judges work with three time frames when fixing the period of parole ineligibility: (1) 10 to 15 years; (2) 15 to 20 years; and (3) 20 to 25 years.

In practice, the third time frame is reserved for the "worst of offenders" in the "worst of cases". The first is reserved for those offenders for whom the prospects of rehabilitation appear good and little would be served by extending the period of parole ineligibility other than to further the sentencing objectives of denunciation and retribution. The second time frame is reserved for those who fall somewhere in between the first and third. Obviously, these time frames are not cast in cement and represent a basic starting point for analysis. [ 36 ] In R. v. Beaver , 2014 NSSC 10 , and R. v.

Oland , 2016 NBQB 43 , the courts extensively reviewed various cases dealing with parole ineligibility. Those cases also assist in providing a range of parole ineligibility for second-degree murder cases. I must consider the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation made by

the jury pursuant to

section 745.2. [ 37 ] I must consider dispositions for similar offenders in similar circumstances. In R. v. Hawkins , 2011 NSCA 7 , leave to appeal denied, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 102, Beveridge J.A., for the court, set out the facts: 60 The aggravating factors are that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery of a vulnerable victim in his own home. While the appellant may have been a welcome visitor initially, the fact remains the murder was committed in the home of the deceased.

The death of the victim may have followed from the knife wounds to his neck, nonetheless, it could also have been caused by the ligature strangulation from a towel and telephone cord placed around the victim's neck, apparently done to prevent interference in the robbery or access to help by phone. The appellant demonstrated callousness by using the proceeds of the robbery to buy cocaine, and later selling cigarettes taken from the deceased, and in trying to disguise his involvement in the offence.

The appellant was on 18 months probation commencing May 9, 2006 for the property offences of theft and fraud and breach of probation. [ 38 ] In determining that parole ineligibility should be set at 15 years in Hawkins , Beveridge J.A. stated: 95 The facts speak of a brutal and callous murder of a vulnerable victim in his own home by an offender driven by the scourge of addiction to a corrosive drug. Most murders are brutal and callous.

As recognized by many cases, the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole ineligibility for at least ten years already carries with it a significant element of denunciation and general deterrence. However, here the appellant recognized at trial and on appeal that some additional period beyond the automatic minimum ten years was appropriate and suggested 15 years. I agree that in light of the circumstances of this offence, some increase in the period of parole ineligibility is warranted. In my opinion, the acceptable range of sentence in these circumstances is between 12 and 15 years.

I would accept the suggestion of the appellant and set it at 15 years. [ 39 ] R. v. Ward , 2011 NSCA 78 , leave to appeal denied, [2014] S.C.C.A. 228, involved a charge of second-degree murder which occurred after a social gathering where alcohol was involved. Ward is an example of the type of case that might fall into the ten-to-15 year range as suggested by Ms. Freeman. In Ward , a dispute arose and the victim was hit in the head with a baseball bat. Following conviction, the trial judge imposed a period of 16 years before parole eligibility. The Court of Appeal reduced it to 13.5 years.

Saunders J.A., for the court, stated: 107. There, my colleague Justice Beveridge meticulously examined leading cases in this and other jurisdictions before stating what this Court sees as being the appropriate current range for parole ineligibility following conviction for second degree murder in cases where similar circumstances may be ascribed to both the offence and the offender. In such cases as those, this Court has declared that the appropriate period of imprisonment before eligibility for parole can be considered ranges between 12 and 15 years. … 110.

After carefully reviewing the record, I see nothing in the facts of this case which would take it outside the range. While it might seem distasteful to some to “compare” the features of one homicide against another, the reality is that such an analysis is required in order that proper, sensible and predictable “ranges” might be established. To the extent that one can ever “grade” the level of viciousness or brutality associated with murder, such an analytical exercise is warranted if one’s objectives are to achieve proportionality and consistency in sentencing for similar crimes and similar offenders. 111.

At the time of sentencing Shane Ward was 35 years of age, single, with a Grade 12 education. He and his brother Matt left Nova Scotia “for greener pastures” and worked in Ontario for nine years before returning to Nova Scotia. He then entered a common law relationship which continues. While in high school he was a wrestler who displayed sufficient skills to make it to the nationals and be asked to try out for the Canada Games team. Witnesses referred to the appellant as being a very capable and hard-working drywaller. He denied using drugs and said he rarely drank alcoholic beverages.

His probation officer described him as an intelligent, pleasant and co-operative individual. Letters of support described Mr. Ward as kind, honest and non-violent, in many ways “a peacemaker” within his group of friends. People said the offence was out of character and that the appellant was one who always put the interests of others ahead of his own. The appellant was also cited as the person responsible for saving the lives of several individuals whose house was on fire. Mr. Ward was able to raise the alarm and get people to safety before anyone was hurt. 112.

Such commendable qualities and mitigating factors must be contrasted with the aggravating features noted by the trial judge. The appellant told his probation officer that he could not remember the details of the offence. He thought Phillip Love said “I’m going to kill you”, he felt scared and only recalled hitting Love with an unknown object. Mr. Ward had a somewhat dated criminal record, but which did include crimes of violence including assault, possession of a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm. Significantly these incidents involved assaults upon relatives and friends.

This suggests that the appellant has a hair trigger temper or little capacity to control his emotions. 113. There can be no question that Phillip Love was the victim of a brutal murder. He was virtually beaten to death in his own home. He lingered on in the hospital for several days. However, given the nature of his severe skull and brain injuries, death was inevitable. 114. Undoubtedly alcohol was a factor in these tragic circumstances. The trial judge found that the appellant was intoxicated but also appeared to be the least intoxicated of all of the persons who were in the residence that evening. 115.

After taking into account all of these circumstances including the principles and objectives of sentencing; the appellant’s culpability in such a senseless and vicious assault; and a recognition that in his case the prospects for parole should not be so distant as to dash all hope for rehabilitation, I would fix the appellant’s period of parole ineligibility at 13½ years. [ 40 ] Mr. Glasgow’s background, in contrast, combined with the nature of the murder of Mr. Sudds, take him beyond the ten-to-15 year range. Analysis

[ 41 ] It cannot be forgotten that Devlin Glasgow has been automatically sentenced to imprisonment for life. [ 42 ] In Hawkins , Beveridge J.A., speaking for the Court, made several comments about parole eligibility or ineligibility, and reviewed various cases that speak to the appropriate period of parole ineligibility for second-degree murder. Justice Beveridge stated: [2] Life imprisonment is the maximum sentence of incarceration in Canada. Since the abolition of capital punishment, the only penalty for any accused convicted of murder is life imprisonment.

Subject to a grant of clemency from the executive, the offender will always be subject to this sentence for the rest of his natural life. [3] Parole is a possibility. For an offender convicted of first degree murder, there is no eligibility for parole prior to serving 25 years incarceration. Offenders convicted of second degree murder must serve a minimum period of ten years before being eligible to apply for parole.

However, a sentencing judge is required to consider whether that minimum period of ten years should be increased by some number up to a maximum of 25 years. … [53] In my opinion, a trial judge is required to consider the principle that a sentence order being imposed be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. … … [98] It must be remembered that the appellant will forever be subject to a sentence of imprisonment. He may never be released on parole.

Whether his risk of re-offending is such that he be permitted to be released conditionally will be up to the Parole Board. If he is released, it is only on his satisfactory compliance with whatever conditions the Board places on him to ensure his respect for a peaceful and safe society. [ 43 ] Mr. Glasgow flew into Halifax the day of the murder and flew back to Vancouver the day after the murder. His airline tickets were purchased at the last minute. The day after the murder, he parted ways with Mr. Whynder in a collegial fashion when they arrived in Toronto, showing no apparent signs of concern. [ 44 ] Mr.

Sudds got into the front passenger seat of the Dodge Charger on the evening of October 10, 2013. Mr. Glasgow was in the back seat and Mr. Whynder was driving. They drove to a secluded area of Africville Road where, at some point during the short period of time the three men were together, Mr. Sudds suffered blunt force trauma to his head, was shot in the arm and neck, and then, fatally, in the head. [ 45 ] Mr. Glasgow has a lengthy and serious criminal record for illegal possession of guns and assaultive behaviour. He shot someone five times with a handgun in 2005. He was either the principal or a party to Mr.

Sudds’s murder, who was shot and killed with a handgun. Mr. Glasgow reports that he himself has been shot twice, and basically says that it came with the territory of his chosen criminal lifestyle. He was convicted of trafficking in firearms in 2017. Mr. Glasgow clearly has been entrenched in a dangerous criminal lifestyle. [ 46 ] Considering cases that involve similar offenders and similar situations, Devlin Glasgow’s parole ineligibility is in the range of 15 to 20 years.

Given the circumstances of the offence, his criminal record, his entrenched criminal lifestyle, but also considering his very challenging background as described in the IRCA, the systemic racism he faces in the federal penitentiary system (according to the Commission Report) and the time he spent on remand during COVID, the appropriate period for parole ineligibility is 16 years. Time spent in custody [ 47 ]

Section 746 of the Criminal Code states: 746. In calculating the period of imprisonment served for the purposes of

section 745, 745.1, 745.4, 745.5 or 745.6, there shall be included any time spent in custody between (

a) in the case of a sentence of imprisonment for life after July 25, 1976, the day on which the person was arrested and taken into custody in respect of the offence for which that person was sentenced to imprisonment for life and the day the sentence was imposed; … [ 48 ] Mr. Glasgow was remanded when he was arrested on October 1, 2019. He has been in custody for the entire time he was awaiting trial. Therefore, because of his time in custody since his arrest on these charges, Mr. Glasgow must receive the statutorily- mandated credit for that time in custody.

Conclusion [ 49 ] The imposition of life imprisonment already carries with it a significant element of denunciation and general deterrence. Mr. Glasgow may never be released on parole. He might spend the rest of his life in prison. However, the National Parole Board might eventually determine that he can return to society. If the Parole Board does determine that Mr. Glasgow can leave prison, he will be subject to strict conditions and supervision. Even then, that supervision and those strict conditions would be in place be for the rest of his life. [ 50 ] Mr. Glasgow has been sentenced to life in prison.

Considering the facts of the murder, Mr. Glasgow’s character, criminal record, background, pre-trial custodial conditions, and the range of ineligibility determined in similar cases, I set Devlin Glasgow’s parole ineligibility at 16 years, that is, he must serve 16 years before he can apply for parole. That is not the date he gets parole. It is merely the date he can start applying for parole. As discussed, that 16-year time frame starts on the date of his arrest on October 1,

2019. [ 51 ] In imposing this sentence, I ask Mr. Glasgow to keep in mind the words of Justice Beveridge in Hawkins , that he will be subject to a sentence of imprisonment forever. He may never be released on parole. [ 52 ] Whether his risk of reoffending is such that he will be permitted to be released conditionally will be up to the Parole Board.

If he is released it will only be on his satisfactory compliance with whatever conditions the board places on him to ensure his respect for a peaceful and safe society. [ 53 ] Additionally, as requested by the Crown, I will order a primary DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(a), and a lifetime firearms prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code . Arnold, J.