R v Sinclair, 2024 MBPC 4

CITATION: R v Sinclair, 2024 MBPC 4 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN His Majesty the King ) E. Dolcetti ) ) M. Wall for the Crown - and – ) ) ) Leslie Sinclair ) ) C. Antila C. Olson ) for the Accused ) ) Judgment delivered: ) January 16, 2024 CAWLEY, P.J. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Leslie Sinclair was convicted after trial of one count of unlawful act manslaughter. Ms. Sinclair caused the death of her boyfriend Brent Wilson by stabbing him once in the upper chest in the course of a domestic dispute. This is my sentencing decision.

SUMMARY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES [ 2 ] On the night of July 16, 2021, Ms. Sinclair and Mr. Wilson were hosting a housewarming party with their friends in Cross Lake, Manitoba. At one point during the party, while the couple were alone inside Ms. Sinclair’s trailer, she violently smashed a baseball cleat, with raised studs on the sole, against Mr. Wilson’s face causing multiple facial wounds. [ 3 ] Mr. Wilson left the party but later that night, at another location, Ms. Sinclair again physically attacked Mr. Wilson. She tried to hit him, but she was pulled off by a bystander. Again, Mr.

Wilson removed himself from the situation and left the party. [ 4 ] The next morning both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Sinclair returned home to Ms. Sinclair’s trailer. Initially, Ms. Sinclair was with friends but after they left, Ms. Sinclair and Mr. Wilson were alone. [ 5 ] For reasons previously stated, I rejected Ms. Sinclair’s testimony as to what transpired in the trailer. I did not believe her assertion that Mr. Wilson was violent toward her or her bald assertion that he acted with violence in the course of their relationship.

As is evident from my trial decision, I was convinced by the totality of the evidence that Ms. Sinclair assaulted Mr. Wilson multiple times on the night in question. She was the aggressor. [ 6 ] With respect to what occurred in the trailer, I found Ms. Sinclair grabbed a knife, knowing it was a knife, and with a clenched raised fist, stabbed Mr. Wilson once with a downward motion. The knife penetrated Mr. Wilson’s upper chest, above his clavicle, 12 cm deep. Mr. Wilson fell to his knees as the injury lacerated a major artery and vein. Upon seeing Mr. Wilson’s injury, Ms. Sinclair immediately provided aid.

She helped him walk outside but he collapsed on the steps of her trailer. She was distraught as she called for assistance and performed CPR, but Mr. Wilson died a short time later. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 7 ] The Crown argues that a ten year period of incarceration is warranted given the aggravating circumstances, particularly the domestic violence context, the use of a weapon and the previous acts of violence targeting Mr. Wilson in the hours prior to his death. While the Crown recognizes the presence of some mitigating factors, they argue Ms.

Sinclair’s moral culpability remains high given the nature of her offending. The Crown highlights the enormity of the loss suffered as a result of Ms. Sinclair’s actions, emphasizing Mr. Wilson’s death has had a huge and long-lasting impact on his family and community. [ 8 ] Defence argues that a sentence of two years less one-day to be served in the community should be imposed. They emphasize the mitigating circumstances such as Ms. Sinclair’s rehabilitative prospects as a young Indigenous woman with no prior criminal record. They highlight that Ms.

Sinclair has been on bail for over two and one half years without issue. Defence reminds the Court that conditional sentences can address the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. Defence submits rehabilitation remains a relevant consideration given Ms. Sinclair’s personal circumstances, her reduced moral culpability because she was intoxicated, and her

immediate remorse and efforts to save Mr. Wilson. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 9 ] A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was filed and provides important background information about Ms. Sinclair. She is a 32 year old Indigenous woman with treaty status from Cross Lake First Nation. She is a mother to her ten year old son from a previous relationship. [ 10 ] In terms of her upbringing, Ms. Sinclair reports she had a good childhood. She enjoys the support of a large extended family, many of whom spoke of her good character in the PSR.

She was raised primarily by her mother, Lisa Sinclair, who was employed as a nurse and able to financially support the family. While Ms. Sinclair’s parents were separated, causing her to lose contact with her father during her teenage years, she reconnected with him after the birth of her son. She continues to enjoy a good relationship with her father. [ 11 ] Ms. Sinclair did not experience physical abuse by either of her parents, but she did experience some physical abuse by one of her mother’s partners when she was a child. While this was not witnessed by Ms.

Sinclair’s mother, she left the relationship after Ms. Sinclair disclosed the abuse to her. Ms. Sinclair’s mother’s current partner has been in her life since she was twelve years old. Ms. Sinclair reports he has always been good to her and she did not witness any domestic violence in their home. [ 12 ] Ms. Sinclair was a good student. She graduated in 2011 and completed the Medical Laboratory Assistant program in 2015. She started to attend the University of Winnipeg but discontinued her education when she was offered a job as a medical assistant at the nursing station in Cross Lake, Manitoba.

She worked at the medical lab for four years until the offence occurred. Her past employer was very complementary toward Ms. Sinclair and her work. [ 13 ] Ms. Sinclair’s mother was raised in the Christian faith whereas her father’s family was traditional land-based. Ms. Sinclair has participated in Pow Wows and hunting with her father. She speaks Cree and is teaching her son the language. Ms. Sinclair identifies with the Catholic religion but she is interested in exploring Indigenous spirituality and practices further. [ 14 ] Ms. Sinclair’s parents and other family members attended day school and Ms.

Sinclair’s paternal grandmother attended residential school. Some family members reported experiences with verbal and physical abuse as well as the loss of their language. [ 15 ] Since Ms. Sinclair’s arrest for this matter, she has resided in Winnipeg with her mother, who financially supports her and her son. The move to the city has disconnected Ms. Sinclair and her son from friends and family. [ 16 ] Ms. Sinclair reports she has been unable to secure employment to date. The move to Winnipeg resulted in the loss of her career in the medical field. I note the PSR stated that Ms.

Sinclair was not willing to participate in Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) job training or opportunities for employment referral as she wished to look for work on her own. According to EIA, Ms. Sinclair was unwilling to be in public, to seek a job involving work with other people or the medical field. Counsel advised Ms. Sinclair has applied for jobs but received no response. [ 17 ] The PSR described Ms. Sinclair’s relationship history and re-iterated her trial assertion that Mr. Wilson was abusive in their relationship.

For credibility reasons previously stated, I reject that assertion. [ 18 ] In terms of addiction issues, most of the collaterals in the PSR did not express any concern with Ms. Sinclair’s use of drugs or alcohol. Ms. Sinclair reports she was not raised around alcohol, and drinks socially. She admitted to increased alcohol use in recent years including using alcohol to cope since the offence. Ms. Sinclair’s goal is to stop drinking and, at the time the PSR report was prepared, she was considering attending meetings to address her alcohol use. At the sentence hearing, defence counsel advised that Ms.

Sinclair has now started attending meetings near her home. As for drug use, Ms. Sinclair admits she has used cocaine infrequently in the past but not since the date of the offence. [ 19 ] In terms of mental health, Ms. Sinclair has been diagnosed with anxiety for which she is prescribed medication. She also experiences panic attacks. Ms. Sinclair does not believe she has a problem managing her anger, however, she is open to all forms of programming if recommended. I note her mother reported in the PSR that she can have a “short fuse” but attributed that to the stress of the Court proceedings. Counsel advised Ms.

Sinclair tried to obtain counselling but she cannot afford it given her work benefits were cut off. [ 20 ] The PSR author found Ms. Sinclair would be a suitable candidate for community supervision given her lack of criminal history and willingness to engage in treatment. [ 21 ] Three support letters were filed, one from Ms. Sinclair’s aunt and two from her friends. Her aunt spoke of Ms. Sinclair’s determination in pursuing a career, her helpfulness and her commitment as a single mother. Her friends echoed those sentiments and further detailed Ms.

Sinclair’s caring and supportive nature as well as her ongoing grief related to Mr. Wilson’s death. VICTIM IMPACT [ 22 ] The impact of Ms. Sinclair’s actions were severe. Brent Wilson, a young man, lost his life. His death has devastated his young son, his parents, his siblings, his extended hockey family, numerous friends, work colleagues and his community of Norway House. [ 23 ] The Court received numerous victim impact statements from those who knew and loved Mr. Wilson. They described him as a kind person who often put others before himself. He was a supportive friend. He was a loving son and father.

He was a very talented hockey player. He was also a skilled hunter, fisherman and highly valued employee of the Whiskyjack Treatment Centre. [ 24 ] Mr. Wilson’s family and friends described their ongoing pain and suffering since his death. They have experienced depression, anxiety and panic attacks. For some, their work and relationships have been affected by the trauma of the loss. They have been robbed of the joy they once felt doing the activities they shared with Mr. Wilson. His parents have suffered further disconnection from friends and

family members that reside in Cross Lake, Manitoba because they cannot bring themselves to drive past the location where Mr. Wilsondied. [25] Mr. Wilson’s death has left a hole in the Whiskyjack Treatment Centre. He was a highly skilled employee. He was a rolemodel to many of the Indigenous youth attending the centre and was very involved in their land-based program. He is greatly missed byhis former colleagues and clients. [26] The Court also received a community impact statement from Councillor Edward Albert on behalf of the members of NorwayHouse Cree Nation. Mr.

Albert described the profound loss felt by his community as a result of Mr. Wilson’s untimely death. Hedescribed Mr. Wilson’s friendly, helpful and respectful nature. Brent Wilson was a mentor to young hockey players and served as aleader in the local Norway House Bruins hockey club. Brent Wilson was admired. He had a positive impact on the young people in hiscommunity and served as an ambassador for Norway House. [27] The magnitude of the impact of Brent Wilson’s death cannot be restored by this Court. LAW [28]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code (the Code) outlines the purpose and principles of sentencing, which includes the objective ofdenouncing the criminal conduct and harm done to victims, deterring the offender and others from committing future crimes, and toassist in the rehabilitation of the offender.

The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravityof the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [29] Other sentencing principles this Court must consider are the principle of restraint and those outlined in s.718.2 of the Code,which includes imposing a sentence that achieves parity, and as per s.718.2(e), considers all available sanctions, other thanimprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victims or to the community, withparticular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. [30]

Section 718.2(

e) of the Code was explained in the seminal case of R v Gladue, (SCC), 1999 1 S.C.R.688,where the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this

section is a direction to sentencing judges to consider the unique background andsystemic factors which may have played a

part in bringing the offender before the Court, recognizing the injustice currently experiencedby Indigenous peoples with the criminal justice system (at paras 69 and 88). When sentencing an Indigenous offender, sentencing judgesmust specifically consider whether jail or a more restorative sentence would be appropriate, and if jail is required, what length ofimprisonment is appropriate in all of the circumstances (see also R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , 2012 1 S.C.R. 433 at para 71). [31] I have considered the relevant Gladue factors contained in the PSR and raised by counsel.

In brief, as indicated, while Ms.Sinclair experienced some abuse in her childhood, overall, she enjoyed a happy and supportive upbringing. Her family was financiallystable. For the majority of her youth, Ms. Sinclair was raised in a healthy home free of addictions and domestic violence. Ms. Sinclairsucceeded in school attending post-secondary education and secured employment in her field. Considering all of the relevantinformation, I cannot conclude Ms.

Sinclair’s personal history played a significant role in her offending behavior. [32] That said, the consideration of Gladue factors in the sentencing process is not limited to those circumstances that demonstrate aclear connection between an offender’s personal circumstances and their criminal behavior. As our Court of Appeal recently reiterated inR v Daniels, 2023 MBCA 86, citing R v Harper, 2021 MBPC 47, the assessment of moral blameworthiness includes consideringsystemic and background factors appreciating the reality of being Indigenous as fundamental to the analysis (see paras 14-15).

Ms.Sinclair’s status as an Indigenous woman and her family experiences with the day school and residential school systems provideimportant context. This Court recognizes the intergenerational trauma that has resulted from experiences with those institutions andcolonialism. Ms. Sinclair’s moral culpability is attenuated appreciating her family history. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES [33] The sentence imposed for this offence must be increased or reduced to reflect the aggravating and mitigating circumstancesrelating to the offence and Ms. Sinclair.

Counsel are in substantial agreement as to the relevant circumstances. There are severalaggravating factors to be considered, namely: 1. The offending occurred in the context of a domestic relationship. Per s.718.2(a)(ii), it is statutorily aggravating that Ms. Sinclairabused her intimate partner; 2. Ms. Sinclair was the violent aggressor on the night in question. She demonstrated her animus by repeatedly assaulting Mr. Wilsonthroughout the night. I note the assault with the cleat was particularly violent given Ms. Sinclair used a significant amount of force tocause multiple gash wounds to Mr. Wilson’s face; 3.

During the fatal encounter, Ms. Sinclair used a weapon against Mr. Wilson. He was unarmed; and 4. The weapon used was a knife which by its nature introduces a high risk of serious bodily harm. [34] In addition to the relevant Gladue factors, there are also several mitigating factors to be considered: 1. Ms. Sinclair tried to help Mr. Wilson immediately after stabbing him. She called for assistance and started to perform CPR; 2. She demonstrated regret and remorse after the stabbing and through her comments to the Court. She apologized to the family andaccepted responsibility for her actions; 3. Ms.

Sinclair is open to all forms of treatment and, more recently, has started to address her relationship with alcohol by attendingmeetings; and

4. Ms. Sinclair is a 32 year old woman with no prior criminal record. [35] While I appreciate all of the mitigating circumstances and the ongoing relevance of rehabilitation, in my view, thecircumstances of this offence require a sentence that emphasizes denunciation and deterrence given the context of domestic violence andthe nature of Ms. Sinclair’s offending. CASE LAW [36] The offence of manslaughter carries a wide range of sentences because it varies greatly in its seriousness (see R v Csincsa(M.A.P.) (1993) (MB CA), 85 Man. R. (2d) 241 at pp.242-43, see also R. v. Bell (M.A.)(MBCA) at paras 8-14).

The circumstances can range from close to inadvertence to close to murder. Even appreciating Ms. Sinclair’sactions involved inflicting a single stab wound in an area that required little force to penetrate the body, I still consider the circumstancesfar from inadvertence given the use of a deadly weapon to stab Mr. Wilson above his clavicle, close to his neck. [37] The Court was not provided with any sentence precedents for manslaughter, in relation to a domestic partner, where a sentenceof less than two years was imposed. I have considered all of the cases provided by counsel.

While helpful, they are factuallydistinguishable. [38] Turning first to the defence cases, in R v Lai, 2006 BCCA 368, conditional sentences of two years less one day were upheld inrelation to a manslaughter conviction after trial involving a group attack on a young victim. The offenders who received conditionalsentences had limited roles in the offence (see paras 87 and 102). Unlike Ms. Sinclair, it was not proven they were directly responsiblefor administering the blows that caused the death. [39] In R v Maulen, 2022 BCSC 468, a fist fight led to a victim being stabbed twice with a knife.

The accused was sentenced to 20months in custody, but the circumstances of the offence, which involved a physical attack on the accused by the victim, were verydifferent from this case. [40] In R v Turcotte, (ON CA), 2000 O.J. No. 1316, a two year less one day conditional sentence order wasupheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal for the offence of manslaughter in relation to the accused causing his mother’s death bystrangulation.

There are significant distinguishing features including that the mother engaged in aggressive behavior toward the accusedand confronted him with a knife. [41] In R v Young, 2016 ONCJ 636, a 59 year old man with no record pleaded guilty to causing the death of his son while in a drugand alcohol induced state. After taking into account one year of pre-sentence custody served, the sentencing judge suspended the passingof sentence and required the offender complete the maximum term of probation. Unlike Ms. Sinclair, the Court accepted Mr.

Young hadno intention to harm his son. [42] The Crown argues a proportional sentence is one of ten years incarceration. The Crown filed five cases in support of theirposition. In R v VanEindhoven, 2016 NUCJ 19, an accused was sentenced to 15 years incarceration after pleading guilty to manslaughterin relation to killing his 22 year old intimate partner. The case is distinguishable as the circumstances were unique and included a longconvoluted history that resulted in the accused being in pre-sentence custody over twelve years.

Counsel jointly recommended a fifteenyear sentence which was accepted. [43] In R v A, 2022 NUCJ 37, a fifteen year sentence was imposed after the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation tokilling his common law wife. The range of sentences for domestic manslaughter were reviewed and established a 12 to 15 year range fordomestic manslaughter in Nunavut. Justice Martin highlighted the importance of denunciation and deterrence in condemning spousalviolence, particularly given the prevalence of such violence in that region.

I find this case distinguishable in many respects particularlythe brutal nature of the offending. The facts do not compare to this case which involves a single stab wound with immediate efforts byMs. Sinclair to assist Mr. Wilson. [44] In R v Kyriakakos, 2023 MBKB 150, a twelve year sentence was imposed for the offender’s role in a gang related killing of aperson with a firearm.

Again, the circumstances are highly distinguishable. [45] In R v Larson, 2017 ABQB 79, the accused was sentenced to five years and five months incarceration after pleading guilty to amanslaughter that involved stabbing the victim in the chest with a knife during a fight. This case did not involve domestic violence andthere are additional mitigating factors such as the guilty plea. In my view, a higher sentence than what was imposed in Larson iswarranted given the additional aggravating features present in this case.

MORAL CULPABILITY [46] In R v Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196, the Alberta Court of Appeal discussed the moral culpability assessment for unlawful actmanslaughter. Specifically, the Court stated (at paras 8-10): …In the case of unlawful act manslaughter, the most important of these will be what the unlawful act itself involved. The nature andquality of the unlawful act itself, the method by which it was committed and the manner in which it was committed in terms of thedegree of planning and deliberation are all relevant to this inquiry.

Unlawful acts may be divided into three broad groups: those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, bodily injury; thosewhich are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, serious bodily injury and those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, orcause, life-threatening injuries. Only when the offender's proven mental state at the time of commission of the offence is evaluated in thecontext of the crime itself, in other words in terms of its relative degree of seriousness, is it possible to classify for sentencing purposesthe degree of fault inherent in the crime committed.

[47] The Court in Laberge also clarified that the assessment was not limited to the physical characterization of the unlawful act.Other considerations are relevant such as “…the choice of weapon used to effect the unlawful act, the degree of force the offender usedin perpetrating the act, the extent of the victim's injuries, the degree of violence or brutality, the existence of any additional gratuitousviolence, the degree of deliberation involved in the act, the extent to which the act reflected forethought of action or planning, thecomplexity of the act, what, if anything, provoked the act, the time taken to perpetrate the act and the element of chance involved in theresulting death” (Laberge at para 23, cited with approval in R v Stone, (SCC), 1999 2 S.C.R. 290). [48] Applying those considerations to this case, appreciating Ms.

Sinclair inflicted one stab wound above the clavicle, close to theneck, I would characterize the nature and quality of Ms. Sinclair’s actions as falling somewhere between the second and third categorymentioned in Laberge; that is, the unlawful act of stabbing Mr. Wilson was likely to put him at risk of, or cause, serious bodily injury orlife threatening injuries. [49] In considering her moral blameworthiness, I have also considered the additional gratuitous violence inflicted on Mr. Wilsonover the course of several hours. Ms. Sinclair made a series of ongoing choices to assault Mr.

Wilson including hitting him in the facewith significant force with a baseball cleat. Afterward, she made light of hitting Mr. Wilson with the cleat according to the testimony ofMs. Spence, which I accepted, demonstrating a cold disregard to the harm she inflicted. [50] Ms. Sinclair testified at trial, at the time, she felt bad for what happened, and she wanted to talk to Mr. Wilson, but her actionssuggest otherwise. She tried to attack Mr. Wilson again later that night when the couple were at a friend’s home. The next morning,during the final fatal encounter at Ms. Sinclair’s trailer, Ms. Sinclair stabbed Mr.

Wilson once with a knife which is a dangerous weaponcapable of inflicting life threatening injury. Mr. Wilson was unarmed. I accept the stabbing happened quickly and that there was no pre-planning involved. I also appreciate Ms. Sinclair was highly intoxicated at the time. There were no provocative elements to this offence.As indicated, I rejected Ms. Sinclair’s testimony that Mr. Wilson was acting with aggression toward her. [51] The stab wound penetrated Mr. Wilson’s body to a depth of 12 cm but given the location, it would not require a significantamount of force to inflict. The injury was severe as Mr.

Wilson’s vein and artery were lacerated, causing death within minutes. [52] While I appreciate the relevance of Gladue, on the whole, I still consider Ms. Sinclair’s moral culpability to be high. [53] Defence argues that a sentence of less than two years is appropriate highlighting Ms. Sinclair’s personal background and thenature of her offending, but I disagree. The cases filed do not support Ms. Sinclair’s position as there are several additional aggravatingcircumstances present in this case. In my view, a sentence of less than two years is inadequate to address the severity of Ms.

Sinclair’sactions and her high moral blameworthiness. Such a sentence would send the wrong message to Ms. Sinclair and the community at largegiven the serious concern in our society about domestic violence. [54] While counsel did not address the facts of Gladue in their submissions, I note that the case involved a domestic manslaughtercommitted by an Indigenous woman.

While the case is factually distinguishable, both in the circumstances and the presence of themitigating guilty plea, I raise it to highlight that even where additional mitigating factors existed, the Supreme Court of Canada upheldthe imposition of a penitentiary sentence. [55] I appreciate the basis for defence’s argument for a conditional sentence order, however, the imposition of such an orderrequires the Court to first find the appropriate sentence to be less than two years and consistent with the relevant purpose and principlesof sentencing.

While I do not have a concern about public safety in this case, I consider a sentence of approximately two years to beinconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. Such a sentence would not adequately address denunciation and deterrence. Inmy view, the aggravating features of this case necessitate a penitentiary sentence much higher than two years. [56] Parity is also an important consideration in sentencing. Similar offenders who commit similar offences should receive similarsentences.

While not specifically referenced in their sentencing submissions, counsel relied on the Manitoba decision of R v Woodford,2015 MBQB 168, in the course of this trial. I find the Woodford sentencing precedent to be instructive as the circumstances are similar tothis case (see R v Woodford, 2016 MBQB 72). [57] Woodford was found guilty after trial of killing her intimate partner in the course of an alcohol-fuelled fight with a single stabwound to the chest.

Like the evidence in this case, the pathologist in Woodford confirmed the stab wound required minimal force toinflict. [58] Woodford was a young Indigenous woman. There were significant Gladue factors present including family attendance atresidential schools, mental health issues, Child and Family Services (CFS) involvement, limited education, periods of homelessness, andinvolvement in drug trafficking to fuel her own drug use. Woodford was not initially engaged in rehabilitative programming. Overall, herrehabilitative prospects were not as high as Ms. Sinclair. [59] Unlike Ms.

Sinclair’s unlawful act, Woodford’s fatal act was committed while in the throes of an assault on her by her partner’ssisters. Justice Greenberg found that circumstance reduced her level of moral culpability. There were other important aggravatingfeatures in Woodford including a documented criminal history of Woodford’s assaultive behavior of her partner. Woodford had beenarrested previously for domestic assault and breaching related Court orders.

On the date of the stabbing, Woodford was subject to twoprobation orders and several recognizances all containing terms aimed to protect the victim. [60] Woodford was sentenced to 9 years incarceration total, broken down as 8 years for the offence of manslaughter, a concurrentone year for the offence of assault with a weapon in relation to the victim’s sister, and one year consecutive for breaching the applicableCourt orders.

Comparing the circumstances in Woodford to this case, and considering all of the relevant sentencing principles, I am ofthe view a sentence similar to, but less than, what was imposed in Woodford is appropriate, mainly because of the differences in criminalhistory and Ms. Sinclair’s prospects of rehabilitation. [61] In their submissions, defence highlighted the impact a penitentiary sentence would have on Ms. Sinclair and her young son.Defence advised, because Ms. Sinclair is female and there is no female penitentiary in Manitoba, she will serve her sentence out of

province causing even greater disconnection from her family. The Crown did not dispute that assertion. I have also taken into account the degree of anticipated family separation as a collateral consequence magnifying the severity of the sentence for Ms. Sinclair as part of the parity analysis ( R v L.C., 2022 ONCA 863 at para 23-24 ). CONCLUSION [ 62 ] I am mindful of the principle of restraint and that the sentence imposed must be the lowest sentence that can adequately address the principles of sentencing.

After considering all of the relevant factors, I find a proportional sentence to be one of seven years incarceration. [ 63 ] Ms. Sinclair served two days of pre-sentence custody; she is entitled to three days of enhanced credit which will be deducted from her sentence. The following ancillary orders will also be granted: - a s.109 weapons prohibition for a period of ten years - a mandatory DNA order pursuant to s.487.051(1). “Original signed by:” CAWLEY, P.J.