R. v. D.S., 2023 MBKB 97

HIS MAJESTY THE KING, ) Daniel P. Chaput ) Michelle S. Bright - and - ) for the Crown ) D.S. , ) Taralee D. Walker accused. ) Amanda L. Sansregret, K.C. ) for the accused ) ) ) Oral Decision Pronounced: ) May 9, 2023 ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) June 9, 2023 Date: 20230409 Docket: CR 21-01-38829 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. D.S.

Cited as: 2023 MBKB 97 COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: Publication Ban Pursuant to s. 486 of the Criminal Code , any information that could identify the victims or accused in respect of these offences shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Champagne J . I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] After the conclusion of a three week trial, I convicted D.S. of three robberies and related offences.

The three victims were vulnerable women who worked in the escort business. [ 2 ] The first incident from January 2, 2021 involves charges of robbery, assault cause bodily harm and choking to overcome resistance in the attack of M.S. [ 3 ] The second incident from January 14, 2021 involves robbery and choking to overcome resistance in the attack of A.B. [ 4 ] The final incident occurred on January 18, 2021 and it involves the robbery and choking to overcome resistance of J.B. Today my task is to impose a fit and proper sentence. It is no easy task.

The difficulty in determining a fit and proper sentence is reflected in the different positions of the parties. Positions of the parties [ 5 ] The Crown relies on cases from the Manitoba Court of Appeal that sets the range of sentence for first time offenders for armed robberies of vulnerable victims or soft targets at 2 - 4 years in prison. That range could be increased or decreased for aggravating and mitigating factors. The Crown highlights many aggravating factors and submits there are no mitigating factors as they know very little of D.S. [ 6 ] The accused is 35 years old with a limited criminal record.

On December 7, 2011, D.S. was convicted of assault causing bodily harm in relation to his domestic partner. He was sentenced to 12 months of supervised probation and a $1,500.00 fine. On the same date, he was convicted of failing to appear in court and was fined $100.00. On September 3, 2015 he was convicted of failing to appear in court and was fined $200.00. He was also convicted for failure to comply with a condition of a probation order and was fined $400.00. [ 7 ] The Crown submits the three separate attacks amount to three separate criminal transactions that require consecutive sentences.

They recommend a 6 year sentence for the robbery committed against M.S. on January 2, 2021. The choke to overcome resistance fromthe same date should be 5 years concurrent and the assault cause bodily harm should be 12 months concurrent. [8] The robbery conviction for the attack of J.B. should be 6 years consecutive to the M.S. robbery conviction and the choke toovercome resistance 5 years concurrent. [9] The robbery conviction for the attack on A.B. should be 5 years consecutive and 5 years concurrent for the choke to overcomeresistance. The total length of sentence would amount to 17 years.

The Crown acknowledges that length of sentence requires a last lookand an adjustment for the principle of totality. They say the length of sentence should be reduced by 4 years resulting in a 13 year prisonsentence. [10] The defence submits that the three robberies committed over the course of 16 days amounts to a crime spree that should attractconcurrent sentences as explained in R. v. Arbuthnot, 2009 MBCA 106 (“Arbuthnot”).

In Arbuthnot, Justice Chartierexplained at paragraphs 24 and 25: … in light of the fact that there were a series of similar, continuous and recurring offences with the same gravamen within a sustainedand relatively short period of time, the accused’s offending conduct with respect to the robbery offences can be viewed as sufficientlyinterconnected to form a single criminal transaction or crime spree and thereby attract concurrent sentences This court, as well as other appellate courts, has reached similar conclusions with respect to interrelatedness when dealing with offenderswho commit a series of robberies to feed an addiction.

For the most recent examples, see R. v. Simon, 2007 MBCA 97, 220 Man.R. (2d)43, R. v. Thompson, 2008 BCCA 350, and R. v. Lagimodière (S.M.E.), 2008 MBCA 137, 231 Man.R. (2d) 261. [11] The Court of Appeal sentenced Arbuthnot to a 6 year concurrent sentence for 11 robberies committed over 14 days. [12] As to the length of sentence for D.S., the defence cautions me about the Crown’s authorities. The 2-4 year guideline from theCourt of Appeal refers to armed robberies. The defence points out the robberies committed by D.S. are colloquially known as strong-armed robberies as no weapons were ever used.

Thus they should be considered less serious and the 2-4 year guideline is inappropriate. As for the offence of choke to overcome resistance, defence notes that none of the victims were choked to the point of unconsciousnessand therefore the choking offences committed by D.S. is less serious than others found in the case law. [13] The defence relies on R. v. Dalkeith-Mackie, 2018, MBCA 118, one of the Crown’s authorities for armed robbery to argue that20 months is the appropriate length of time for the robbery of M.S.

They suggest 18 months concurrent for choke to overcome resistanceand 6 months concurrent for the assault cause bodily harm. [14] The defence submits the sentence for the robbery of J.B. should be 20 months concurrent as it is part of a spree and 18 monthsconcurrent for the choke to overcome resistance. The sentence for the robbery of A.B. should be 20 months concurrent as part of thespree and 18 months concurrent on the choke to overcome resistance. [15] Defence counsel notes that D.S.’s time in custody already exceeds their recommendations for sentence.

The defence maintainsthat a 20 month sentence is a serious sentence and is of sufficient length to address the principles of deterrence and denunciation. Inaddition, their recommendation accounts for D.S.’s troubled background, prospects for rehabilitation and addresses the principle ofrestraint. [16] Although the sentencing recommendations are far apart, the parties do agree on a few points. First, they agree these are seriousoffences. I note the maximum possible sentence for robbery and choke to overcome resistance is life imprisonment.

The possibility of alife sentence speaks to Parliament’s concern and recognition of the seriousness of these types of crimes. [17] Second, the parties agree the victims were vulnerable women because of the nature and circumstances of their work. [18] Third, the parties acknowledge the principles of deterrence and denunciation are the paramount principles of sentencing in thiscase.

Other principles such as rehabilitation are to be considered but attract less weight. [19] Generally speaking, every sentencing decision involves consideration of the circumstances of the offence, victim impact,background of the offender and the application of the principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C.1985, c. C-46. I now turn to the background of the offender and the circumstances of the offences. II. Background of D.S. [20] D.S. exercised his constitutional right to remain silent throughout the trial.

He declined the opportunity to have a pre-sentencereport prepared in advance of sentencing and he had nothing to say about the offences when asked. He relied on the submissions ofcounsel who gave detailed information about his background. [21] It is an understatement to say D.S. had a difficult childhood. He comes from a large family with seven children. His father wasthe lone breadwinner so money was tight. More troubling was his father’s abusive and violent behaviour. His father was a paranoidschizophrenic with an addiction to prescription pills and a violent temper.

D.S. recalls receiving a number of beatings as a child. Hesuffered from headaches and saw a doctor on numerous occasions. Doctors advised D.S. to undergo a CT scan and MRIs to diagnose thecause of the headaches but his father refused the procedures for his son. [22] In later years, his mother left his father and D.S. found out his mother was also a victim of beatings from his father.

Thosebeatings had a serious impact on his mother as she was hospitalized and underwent neurosurgery to remove brain aneurisms that were aresult of the violent beatings. [23] After the breakup of the family, D.S. underwent various scans and was diagnosed with a brain aneurism when he was 18 years

old. The aneurism is in the middle of his brain on the carotid artery at a location that is inoperable. The neurosurgeon attributes the aneurism to the beatings he suffered as a child. The medical advice urged caution about physical contact. D.S. gave up all contact sports including hockey, which was his favourite pastime. [ 24 ] The family lived in rural Manitoba until D.S. was 14 years old. They moved to Winnipeg and D.S. found it difficult to adjust. He dropped out of school and went to work. By 15 years of age, he was living on his own with friends since his mother had the other children in the small home.

His relationship with his mother was strained. He also started to experience homelessness and struggles with his mental health. [ 25 ] He knew he was struggling with his mental health but refused to admit it to himself. He met a teacher at the Aboriginal High school in the adult education program and rented a room from her. She encouraged him to continue his education and with her help, he obtained his GED. [ 26 ] At age 17 or 18, he started to work as a carpenter’s helper and found his passion. He enjoyed the work and started his apprenticeship through Red River Community College.

Unfortunately, his mental health interfered with his work and studies. He suffered from depression, psychosis and anxiety. He was prescribed medication to assist with the serious health issues. He continued his studies and was rewarded with his journeyman’s carpenter licence at the age of 22. [ 27 ] He began working on a carpentry crew but his mental health issues were still a struggle and he suffered a mental breakdown around the age of 23. After sharing his life story and current struggles with doctors, he was diagnosed with PTSD and prescribed antidepressants around age 24. The medication proved helpful.

D.S. stabilized, regrouped and returned to work in the carpentry field. He had his own successful carpentry business that employed 16 employees for approximately four years. [ 28 ] The success of the business added extra stress to his life as he was responsible for ensuring work for 16 employees. The added stress resulted in further health issues for D.S. He was smoking a pack a day and ended up with esophagus cancer requiring chemo and radiation treatment. He was unable to work and lost employees. [ 29 ] He was in a relationship and had a healthy daughter in 2016.

However, his health issues, his failing business and life stressors resulted in the breakdown of the relationship and he separated from the mother of his daughter. The custody battles and limited access to his daughter was very difficult for him. Eventually, he obtained equal access to his daughter. [ 30 ] At some point, D.S. and his father reconciled. In October 2017, four days after his 30 th , birthday D.S. went to his father’s residence and found him deceased due to a heart attack. This caused additional stress to his wellbeing.

D.S. continued to see a doctor and by 2018 they tried approximately ten different medications attempting to find the right prescription to address the mental health concerns that included lack of sleep, psychosis and hallucinations. [ 31 ] Although he was prescribed various medication the psychosis continued. He was attempting to see a psychiatrist but ended up on a wait list as the COVID pandemic took hold in March 2020. He suffered from lack of sleep and hallucinations until he was arrested and detained in custody. [ 32 ] D.S. was arrested on January 22, 2021 and placed in the remand centre.

He was in quarantine for the first 15 days. He was then transported to Headingley Correctional Centre (“HCC”) where he remained in isolation until March 3, 2021 because he contracted COVID. He was then transferred to Brandon Correctional Centre (“BCC”). [ 33 ] He started to access mental health treatment while in custody in BCC. He was then transferred to HCC where he was placed into mental health segregation single cell units. While in custody and with regular access to a psychiatrist, his medication was dialed in and his mental health is the best it has been in years.

Access to health care professionals have identified numerous concerns. He has the brain aneurysm, high cholesterol, blood pressure issues, depression, PTSD, anxiety, claustrophobia and a hemoglobin problem that causes blood thickening that requires the removal of a litre of blood on a regular basis. He has been diagnosed with sleep apnea and is on a nine month wait list to get a sleep apnea breathing machine. [ 34 ] D.S. advises he has spent 600-660 days in segregation lockdown meaning he has been in his cell 22-23 hours per day.

The days in lockdown was the result of COVID concerns and his time spent in the mental health segregation unit. He has contracted COVID three times while in custody. In addition, the authorities were alerted of D.S.’s brain aneurysm and he was kept separate from the general population because of the possibility of fights and violence in the general unit. [ 35 ] He spends a lot of time reading, thinking and doing puzzles. He has completed three programs in custody that include the lifestyles communication workshop, thinking awareness group and end to aggression program.

All reports are that he was actively engaged in the programs and did very well. [ 36 ] While in BCC he was a trustee, cleaner and painted walls the institution. He was a COVID cleaner at the remand centre on two occasions and while in the mental health segregation unit at HCC he was the unit cleaner and painter. He used 54 gallons of paint to refresh the unit. He used another 30 gallons to paint the Homer unit and 20 plus gallons to paint the Charlie unit.

Despite the stress of isolation in segregation, he does his best to keep busy. [ 37 ] While in custody, he had to deal with grief from the death of a close neighbour and two uncles passing away. He has supports in the community that include two brothers, two sisters and his common-law partner, Lindsey Mansoff. [ 38 ] Counsel submits these personal background factors including his mental health difficulties should be considered mitigating factors in this case. III. Circumstance of the offences January 2, 2021

[ 39 ] I only provide a brief

summary of the three attacks as the detailed facts setting out the circumstances of the robberies are found in my decision at 2023 MBKB 37 . In January 2021, M.S. was working as an escort worker and advertised her services on an escort website. She was working out of her home at an apartment complex in Winnipeg. [ 40 ] On January 2, 2021, at 7:52 p.m., she received a text message from an unknown number requesting her services. Arrangements were made for a 10:00 p.m. meeting at her residence. [ 41 ] D.S. attended her suite. She looked out the peephole of her door and saw a normal looking white male.

She guessed he was in his 30s. He was wearing a mask and a hat, which was usual at the time as we were in the height of the COVID pandemic. M.S. opened the door. D.S. entered the suite and she locked the door behind him. He bent over and she believed he was going to take off his shoes. He quickly got up and attacked her by grabbing her throat. He was applying pressure to her neck and pushing her into the washroom. He had both hands around her throat applying pressure stating he was going to kill her. [ 42 ] M.S. believed she was going to die. She fought back.

She grabbed D.S. by the neck and squeezed as hard as she could. She was fighting for her life. He responded, escalating the violence by punching her in the face multiple times. [ 43 ] She was bleeding and he suddenly stopped. She was still in the bathroom as the D.S. left the suite. She went to the door, locked it and called 911. [ 44 ] M.S. suffered a bruised eye and damaged lip. She told me she required surgery to the right side of her top lip. There was blood on the floor and walls in her suite.

Shortly after attack ended, she realized D.S. stole her keychain that held the keys to her home, her vehicle and other locations. [ 45 ] This incident had a profound and lasting impact on M.S. which is detailed in her victim impact statement at exhibit S-1. It shook her sense of safety and security. She suffered nightmares and loss of bladder control. She lost her confidence and ability to function. She would cry herself to sleep hating what she had become.

She withdrew into herself contemplating suicide. [ 46 ] She had surgery to repair the damage to her lip but has been left with a scar that will be a lifelong reminder of this traumatic event. She has suffered significant financial loss and was forced to move from her residence. This violent crime continues to haunt M.S. and she fears she will be further victimized by the offender. January 14, 2021 [ 47 ] A.B. worked as an escort for a couple of years and advertised her services on an escort website. In January 2021, she was working out of suite 128 at a hotel on King Edward Street.

A.B. scheduled her customers in the afternoon and early evening usually ending no later than 9:00 p.m. to avoid the problematic late night crowd. [ 48 ] A.B. explained she chose suite 128 as it had a private entrance. Customers could gain entry to suite 128 from the outside door of the suite that faced King Edward and opened into the bedroom area of the suite. This private entrance provided some discretion for her clients. [ 49 ] On January 13, 2021 at 1:42 p.m., she received a text message from D.S. asking about her availability and rates. He attended her suite at 3:10 p.m.

She opened the door and let him into the suite. [ 50 ] D.S. commented about the room and looked around the entire suite. He explained he was a builder and had not seen a layout like this suite. After looking throughout the suite, the two had some discussion and D.S. told her about his previous escort being robbed. [ 51 ] D.S. looked at his phone and indicated that he had to leave and there was discussion about rescheduling an appointment for later that evening at 8:00 p.m. [ 52 ] A.B. explained she had a further text message exchange with D.S. that evening. The messages confirmed an appointment for 8:00 p.m.

At 7:06 p.m., A.B. texted D.S. to confirm the meeting for 8:00 p.m. D.S. responded that he had to cancel and they agreed to meet the next day at 8:00 p.m. [ 53 ] On January 14, 2021, D.S. messaged A.B. at 5:18 p.m. to confirm they were on for 8:00 p.m. There are further text messages to adjust the time of the meeting for 7:30 p.m. At 7:36 p.m., there is a text message exchange that confirms he has arrived and is walking to her suite. [ 54 ] D.S. enters the suite through the private door. He took off his shoes and comments on the weather.

A.B. goes to the door to secure the curtains covering the window. [ 55 ] A.B. bent over to place the garbage can against the curtains. As she stood up, she was attacked. D.S. grabbed her from behind and wrapped his arm around her throat. His forearm was across the front of her neck restricting her ability to breathe or scream. She believed he was going to kill her. She felt dizzy and was worried she was losing consciousness. [ 56 ] D.S. manhandled A.B. and flipped her onto the bed. He continued to have his arm around her throat. He told her he wanted her money. She pointed out her money.

He used the chokehold and dragged her to the living room area where the mini fridge was located in a cupboard. She pointed out her money in a small gold pouch hidden on top of the mini fridge. He asked how much and she said $600 – $700 dollars. [ 57 ] He took the gold pouch while restraining A.B. in the chokehold. He pulled her back to the bedroom area. He put the gold pouch on the dresser. He put on his shoes, grabbed the gold pouch and flung A.B. backwards. He opened the door and left the room. [ 58 ] A.B. provided a victim impact statement which is exhibit S-2. It is deeply insightful and a powerful statement.

This violent

crime was an extremely traumatic event. She explains that her life flashed before her eyes as D.S. choked the life out of her. She was unable scream for help or breathe as she was being strangled. Her sense of safety, security and self worth was destroyed. She believes she was targeted because of her work as an escort and D.S. did not see her as a human being but rather she was seen as something less.

She recognizes that profound impact and to move on she must find a way to take her power back. [ 59 ] She continues to suffer a range of emotions through good days and bad days, trigger days and empowering days, days of fear and days of resilience. It is exhausting and she is tired of the feeling of being a victim. She is working on trying to forgive D.S., not for him but for herself as she tries to overcome her serious psychological and emotional injuries. January 18, 2021 [ 60 ] J.B. is from out of province but was working as an escort in Winnipeg on January 18, 2021. She advertised her services online.

At the time, she was working out of a hotel in the St. Boniface area. [ 61 ] J.B. received a text message from D.S. on January 18, 2021. There was discussion about availability, rates and length of session. There was an agreement to meet that evening. D.S. arrived at the door of the hotel suite. J.B. looked out the peephole and believed the person was her client. [ 62 ] J.B. opened the door and allowed D.S. into the room. She said hi and went to use her phone to advise a friend not to come over as she was with a client. J.B. turned towards her bag on a chair and was attacked from behind.

D.S. grabbed her in a chokehold. He had both arms wrapped around her neck. J.B. was unable to speak or breathe and felt she was about to faint. She tried to fight back but was unable to escape the hold. D.S. wanted her money. She directed him to her wallet in her bag on the chair. He maintained the chokehold, moving her towards the chair. She obtained the wallet and he moved her towards the bathroom. He took the money, counted it and said she only had $70.00 and she was a “ poor bitch” . [ 63 ] He pushed her down and J.B. struck her head on the corner of the wall. She got up and tried to fight back.

There was an ensuing struggle that resulted in J.B. being pushed down multiple times striking her head. D.S. got on top of her and she tried to kick him between the legs. The violence escalated with D.S. punching and kicking J.B. [ 64 ] D.S. took her bag and fled the room. It was a small pink backpack that contained her new iPhone and gold phone case. J.B. called the front desk to report the attack. She left her room and went to the elevator and down to the front desk. [ 65 ] At the front desk, the worker saw J.B. was crying, distraught and bleeding from her head and mouth. She called an ambulance.

J.B. was transported to the hospital and treated for a cut to her head that was repaired with glue. [ 66 ] J.B. considered providing a victim impact statement but decided she would rather try to leave everything in the past. Although I do not have a victim impact statement from her, I do not hesitate in concluding this was a traumatic event for J.B. that left her bloodied and bruised. I am sure she would like to put this behind her but I am confident the impact will not be forgotten anytime soon. IV.

Principles of sentencing [ 67 ] The parties and I agree, the principles of deterrence and denunciation are the paramount principles of sentencing in this case. The principle of proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing that provides a strong reminder that a sentence must reflect the gravity of the offence and not exceed what is appropriate given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Concurrent or Consecutive [ 68 ] The first issue I must determine is whether the sentence for the three separate attacks should be served concurrently or consecutively.

There is no dispute that sentences should generally be served consecutively when they arise out of separate and distinct transactions. [ 69 ] There was some debate between the Crown and defence about the reasons the court imposed concurrent sentences for 11 robberies in Arbuthnot . The court concluded Arbuthnot committed the robberies while on a 14 day drug fuelled binge.

The court found the 11 robberies to be part of a single criminal transaction driven by addiction deserving a concurrent sentence. [ 70 ] The defence submits the three robberies committed by D.S. over 16 days are part of a crime spree and he should receive concurrent sentences. The issue I must determine is whether the three robberies form a single transaction. [ 71 ] Arbuthnot was focused on the difficult issue of determining when a series of robberies driven by serious drug addiction should be considered a single transaction.

The case provides guidance for those types of robberies and examples of other multiple offences that can be considered a crime spree and part of a single transaction. [ 72 ] The concept of ‘single transaction’ may be held to cover a sequence of offences involving a repetition of the same behaviour towards the same victim, such as a series of sexual offences with the same partner, a number of frauds on the same victim or several perjured statements made in the course of the same trial, provided the offences are committed within a relatively short period of time. [ 73 ] The three robberies committed by D.S. are similar and took place over a relatively short period of time.

However, I find these were planned and targeted attacks of three different vulnerable women. I conclude they are separate and distinct crimes that call for consecutive sentences. As I will impose consecutive sentences, I acknowledge the principle of totality is engaged.

Aggravating Factors [ 74 ] These were planned attacks that targeted vulnerable women. I will take a moment to comment on the vulnerability of these victims. Women working in the escort or sex trade industry are particularly vulnerable. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford , 2013 SCC 72 , the Supreme Court of Canada described the real safety and security concerns for those working in the sex trade (see: paragraphs 63 and 64). [ 75 ] In addition to safety and security concerns, there is shame and stigma attached to the industry. The business is conducted in the shadows of society.

This case provides a few examples. One victim chose a hotel room with a private entrance so her clients would not be seen by other member of the public. [ 76 ] Some victims did not call the police right away as they were worried about possible consequences from hotel management should they find out about the nature of the visits being conducted in hotel rooms.

Another called the police but did not share the purpose of the visit as she was worried about what her neighbours would think and what her landlord might do if they were aware of the nature of her work. [ 77 ] In my view, this stigma places escorts at greater vulnerability than other soft targets such as convenience store clerks, gas station attendants and taxi drivers who are working with the public in the open and would not hesitate to call police if they were attacked.

I note that every taxi cab has a sign that prompts others to call police if their vehicle flasher has been activated adding a measure of safety should they be threatened. This case demonstrates these safety precautions do not exist for independent escorts who work behind closed doors. [ 78 ] These were planned calculated robberies. D.S. is an intelligent man. Although he came from a difficult background, he obtained his GED and went on to obtain his journeyman licence in carpentry. That is no easy feat.

Carpentry requires the ability to understand and complete complex mathematic equations and the ability to read and comprehend blueprints and planned drawings. D.S. excelled in the industry which is demonstrated by his ability to build his own company employing 16 workers. As I said, he is an intelligent man. [ 79 ] D.S. is also a large strong man. He has worked in carpentry since he was 17 years old. Carpentry requires manual labour, working with your hands. There is a lot of heavy lifting that builds strength in your hands and arms.

Although he is a large, strong man, he still had to be careful about selecting his targets as he has a brain aneurism that could rupture from physical contact or violence. I conclude it was a deliberate and calculated choice to target vulnerable women working as an escort. [ 80 ] D.S. had an understanding of the escort business. He knows these victims are less likely to report a robbery. He told A.B. about his previous escort being the victim of a robbery. As we to move to a more cashless society, D.S. knows from experience that this industry still deals in cash.

He contacts the victims in advance, posing as a client seeking services and inquires about the nature of activity offered and rates. He confirms his targets are working as independents so he expects them to be alone. He schedules his appointment near the end of their shift expecting the victims to have most cash on hand. He used different phone numbers to contact the victims and drove two different cars when attending the locations in an effort to conceal his identity.

This is a thought out and calculated plan in advance of the visit. [ 81 ] Once he is the room with the door shut, he immediately attacks his victims. There is no warning, no demand for money or a threat of violence. The nature of the attack is extremely violent, going for the throat. He does this to dominate and gain complete control over his victims. All three victims believed they would die. They testified about the inability to breathe or scream. [ 82 ] We understand victims react differently, A.B. was submissive, hoping to survive. M.S. and J.B. fought back, fighting for their lives.

That reaction was met with an immediate increase of violence from D.S. These assaults were beyond terrifying, the extreme violence inflicted on these women was meant to terrorize the victims. [ 83 ] It is not surprising A.B. concludes D.S. saw her as something less than a human being. He called J.B. a poor bitch because she only had $70.00. I conclude the extreme violence was an exercise of total domination and power that was also meant to be degrading and demeaning to these vulnerable women. These are extremely serious offences with many aggravating factors.

Mitigating Factors [ 84 ] There are no mitigating factors in the commission of these offences. D.S. pled not guilty and proceeded to trial as is his right. To be clear, that is not an aggravating factor but there is an absence of mitigation such as a guilty plea which is an acknowledgement of harm and a sign of remorse. [ 85 ] This is not the first time D.S. has hurt a woman. He has a conviction for assault cause bodily harm. Again, it is not an aggravating factor but he is not a first time offender. The victim of that assault was his former domestic partner.

I acknowledge it is becoming a dated conviction but I find the related criminal record disentitles him to leniency. [ 86 ] I acknowledge and accept D.S’s personal struggles with his mental health. However, there is no evidence that his mental health issues in any way contributed to his offending behaviour. These were planned and calculated robberies, committed with purpose.

He chose victims he knew he could physically overpower and not worry about his own serious health issues should a victim retaliate. [ 87 ] These robberies were not driven by addictions, they were committed for the purpose of obtaining money and terrorizing vulnerable women. His moral culpability is very high. [ 88 ] D.S.’s mental health struggles and willingness to address them in custody, his participation of programming and work while in custody and his community supports are factors that inform prospects for rehabilitation.

As previously stated, the principle of rehabilitation takes on a lesser role in a case like this where the offences are serious crimes of violence and the responsibility or moral culpability of the offender is very high.

V. The Sentence [ 89 ] After careful consideration of the circumstances of these offences, the background of the offender, the impact on the victims and all of the principles of sentencing, I conclude a significant sentence is required to send the message to D.S. and the community that attacks of vulnerable women are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. January 2, 2021 [ 90 ] The sentence for the robbery of M.S. is 4 years. The sentence for choking her to overcome resistance to enable the robbery is 4 years concurrent. I find the choking aspect of the offence to be very serious.

As I have explained, D.S. immediately went for the throat in an effort to obtain total domination of his victims and the length of sentence must reflect the seriousness of his actions. The sentence for the assault resulting in bodily harm to M.S. is 1 year concurrent. January 14, 2021 [ 91 ] The sentence for the robbery of A.B. is 4 years consecutive. I note the Crown recommended the sentence for A.B. be less than the sentence for M.S. and J.B. The only difference is one of physical injury.

Although A.B. did not sustain any lacerations or other physical injury, the damage to her psychological and emotional well being is severe. There is no reason to impose a reduced sentence for this robbery. The sentence for choking A.B. to enable the robbery is 4 years concurrent. January 18, 2021 [ 92 ] The sentence for the robbery of J.B. is 4 years consecutive. The sentence for choking her to enable the commission of the offence is 4 years concurrent. [ 93 ] The total length of sentence is 12 years. As previously stated, the principle of totality is engaged.

Totality [ 94 ] As I have imposed consecutive sentences, I am required to take one last look at the total length of sentence. Arbuthnot explains the last look is a more focussed application of the general principle of proportionality found in s. 718.1. [ 95 ] I am required to take a last look to consider if the 12 year sentence is unduly long, harsh or crushing.

The factors to consider include the gravity of the offences, D.S.’s moral culpability in committing the offences, his criminal record, the harm done to the victims and the offender’s future prospects. [ 96 ] D.S. is a mature offender with a prior related record. These are very serious offences and his moral culpability is high as explained earlier in my reasons. The victims have suffered serious injury that include physical, psychological, emotional and financial damage. The harm inflicted is lasting. These women deserve protection from the courts.

I have acknowledged that D.S. has prospects for rehabilitation but conclude it is less of a factor and does not convince me the sentence should be reduced. I find that a 12 year sentence does not offend the principle of totality as it is a fit a proper sentence in all of the circumstances. [ 97 ] D.S. has been in custody since his arrest on January 22, 2021. That is a total of 838 days. I give him credit at the rate of 1.5 days for every day served which amounts to 1,257 days (838 plus 419 = 1,257).

The 1,257 will be ducted from the overall length of sentence. [ 98 ] The offence of robbery is a primary designated offence. I make an order pursuant to s. 487.051 that D.S. provide a bodily sample suitable for DNA analysis and registration on the National Data Bank. [ 99 ] There is a 10 year

section 109 weapons prohibition. [ 100 ] Pursuant to s. 743.21, I order that D.S. have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with the three named victims while he is serving his sentence. [ 101 ] Given the sentence I have imposed, I waive costs and surcharge. _____________________________ J.