R. v. F.L., 2018 ONCJ 90

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: This is a case under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and is subject to subsections 110(1) and 111(1) and

section 129 of the Act. These provisions read as follows: 110. IDENTITY OF OFFENDER NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —

(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act. . . . 111. IDENTITY OF VICTIM OR WITNESS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED —

(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person. . . . 129. NO SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE — No person who is given access to a record or to whom information is disclosed under this Act shall disclose that information to any person unless the disclosure is authorized under this Act.

Subsection 138(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with these provisions, states as follows: 138. OFFENCES — Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published) . . . or

section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) . . . (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (

b) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. F.L. , 2018 ONCJ 90 DATE: 2018 02 02 COURT FILE No.: Halton 17-Y260 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — F.L., a young person Before Justice Lesley M. Baldwin Heard on October 20, 2017; November 10, 2017; and January 4, 2018 Reasons for Sentence released on February 2, 2018

M. McGuigan........................................................................................ counsel for the Crown L. Wilhelm................................................................................. counsel for the accused F.L.

BALDWIN J.: [ 1 ] F.L., aged 17 years (dob March 21 st , 2000), pled guilty to 2 Counts of Robbery and 2 Counts of Breaching a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order, that Order having been made on April 12, 2017 in Hamilton. [ 2 ] The first guilty plea before me (entered October 20, 2017) was to a Robbery he committed on August 24 th , 2017, in Burlington by stealing a sum of money from R.C., and at the time, did use violence to R.C. contrary to s. 344(

b) of the C.C.C. [ 3 ] Facts with respect to another victim of that Robbery were read in and acknowledged. The second victim was I.T. [ 4 ] The second guilty plea (also entered on October 20, 2017) was to a Robbery committed on August 25, 2017, in Burlington whereby he attempted to steal money from E.M., and at the time, did use violence to E.M., contrary to s. 344(

b) of the C.C.C. The Facts of Both Robberies are as Follows: [ 5 ] On August 24 th , 2017 F.L. contacted the victim R.C. who is an escort. F.L. and R.C. came to an agreement and arranged to meet at her motel room located at 3500 Billings Court in Burlington. R.C. shares this room with I.T. At approximately 11:00 p.m., F.L. attended room #237, which is the room of both victims and knocked on the door. R.C. answered the door and allowed F.L. inside. As R.C. attempted to close the door, F.L. held it open allowing a second male armed with a knife to enter the room.

F.L. and the unknown suspect then made a demand for money. R.C. began to scream causing the unknown suspect to cover her mouth. The unknown male then pushed R.C. back several times causing a table to break. At this time, F.L. rummaged through both victims’ purses and removed approximately $1,000.00 in cash. Upon obtaining the money, both F.L. and the unknown suspect fled the motel.

I.T. was present during the incident but was not injured. (Any injuries sustained by R.C. were not read in on the guilty plea). [ 6 ] Police subsequently obtained the phone number the suspects used to contact R.C. [ 7 ] On August 25 th , 2017 F.L. contacted the victim E.M. who is an escort. F.L. and E.M. came to an agreement and arranged to meet at her motel room at the Comfort Inn located at 3290 South Service Road in Burlington. At approximately 4:35 p.m., F.L. attended room #101 and knocked on the door. E.M. answered the door and F.L. entered brandishing a knife.

F.L. stated that he was going to stab E.M. causing her to push him back, however F.L. pushed her up against the wall and covered her mouth . At this point, both F.L. and the unknown second suspect were in the room and shut the door behind them. In an effort to defend herself, E.M. began to swat at F.L. and grabbed the unknown suspect’s testicles. While this was occurring, F.L. began to choke E.M. and threatened to stab her . During the altercation, F.L. referenced that he and the unknown suspect were in possession of a firearm.

Due to E.M. fighting back both F.L. and the unknown suspect stopped the assault and both males fled without stealing anything from E.M. Police subsequently responded and learned that the phone number the suspects used was the same number used to set up the August 24 th , 2017 robbery at the Admiral Inn. [ 8 ] Police contacted their service provider and obtained information regarding F.L.’s phone number identifying him as one of the suspects responsible. [ 9 ] At approximately 2200 hours (10:00 pm), F.L. was observed near his residence in Hamilton operating a motor vehicle.

Police conducted a traffic stop and arrested F.L. at 2202 hours. A search incident to arrest revealed various articles of clothing worn in the robbery along with his cellphone used to contact the victims and the knife used to commit the robberies. [ 10 ] F.L. was held for bail and detained. The second suspect is unknown and remains at large. [ 11 ] F.L. also pled guilty before me to two counts of breaching his Deferred Custody and Supervision Order by committing the Robberies noted above on August 24 th and 25 th , 2017.

Record and Circumstances of Prior Offence: [ 12 ] On April 4 th , 2017, F.L. was sentenced for Robbery and received a 6 month Deferred Custody and Supervision Order followed by 18 months of Probation in Hamilton by Madam Justice Marjoh Agro. [ 13 ] That Robbery occurred on June 30 th , 2016 at 2100 hours in Hamilton. A witness called police to report that they had witnessed a female that had been mugged by a young male.

The male rode his bike into the female, took her purse and threw her to the ground. [ 14 ] F.L. was located in the area by police and refused to stop for them and rode off on his bike eventually colliding with the back of a stopped cruiser. He fled on foot and was subsequently arrested. He was searched and found to be in possession of the victim’s identification and her change purse. [ 15 ] The 81 year old female victim, C.R., sustained the following injuries: • Abrasion to left knee

• Abrasion to left elbow • Scrapes and bruising to side of left wrist • Scrapes and bruising to palm of left hand • Scrapes and bruising to palm of right hand [ 16 ] F.L. was 16 years old at the time and was held for bail. [ 17 ] The Terms of the Deferred Custody and Supervision Order and the 18 month Probation Order were filed as Exhibit #1 on this Hearing. [ 18 ] The Terms of the Deferred Custody and Supervision Order were strict and required that F.L. be in his residence at […], Hamilton ON daily between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. except during Ramadan which occurs from May 27, 2017 to June 24, 2017, when he was permitted to attend religious services but still had to be in his residence daily between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. [ 19 ] F.L. was cautioned that a failure to abide by his curfew may result in him serving the remainder of his sentence in custody. [ 20 ] His Deferred Custody and Supervision Order expired on October 12 th , 2017 and he has pre-trial credit from that day forward to today on these offences.

At the time Sentencing Submissions were made, F.L. had credit for 85 days of pre-trial custody. As of today, he has accumulated another 29 for a total of 114 days of pre-trial custody. Victim Impact Statement of E.M. – Exhibit #4: [ 21 ] E.M. writes that she has flashbacks of the incident and she is stressed and depressed. [ 22 ] She has a scar on her wrist from where she was cut with the knife. She has an injury on her foot which still causes her pain.

Pre-Sentence Reports – Exhibit #6: [ 23 ] A Report dated November 10, 2017, authored by Leslie Phillipo was prepared for this Hearing. [ 24 ] Attached thereto is the first Pre-Sentence Report prepared by Leslie Phillipo for the Hamilton Robbery dated April 12, 2017. [ 25 ] The two Reports outline concerning conduct on F.L.’s part. [ 26 ] Before the collapse of his Deferred Custody Order, he had been living with his mother and father and his two younger siblings at […] in Hamilton. [ 27 ] He was not employed, not attending any schooling and was not on track to complete the 60 hours of Community Service as ordered by the Court. [ 28 ] While in custody F.L. has at times been argumentative and disrespectful to staff. [ 29 ] On October 18, 2017, F.L. punched another youth in the facility in the face.

Staff intervened and reportedly incurred injuries to their back, chest and head as a result. It is reported that he has made racist comments to staff and youth at the facility towards individuals of colour. [ 30 ] In a counselling session with Mr. Mattis at the facility it is written that F.L. ‘stated that he is a member of the ISIS terrorist group’, and told Mr. Mattis that ‘I wish that Hitler killed all the Jews’. (p. 5) [ 31 ] At this sentencing Hearing, F.L. denied making these statements to Mr. Mattis.

The Crown was given an opportunity to prove these statements on a Gardiner Hearing, however, the Crown decided not to and provided no reasons for this decision. Therefore, Counsel have agreed that I am not to consider these alleged statements in imposing sentence. [ 32 ] F.L. reported to the author that he felt remorse for the victims and has learned from his mistakes. [ 33 ] F.L. continues to have a positive relationship with his parents who visit him at the facility regularly.

They have forgiven him. [ 34 ] The author questions how influential the parents are in guiding F.L. to make positive changes given his history of violent criminal involvement. [ 35 ] “It appears as though F.L.’s offences have increased in violence and this Officer is concerned about the risk that this poses within the community.” (p. 6) [ 36 ] The Officer recommends that F.L. receive intensive individual counselling to address criminogenic factors in an effort to reduce recidivism. [ 37 ] The first Pre-Sentence Report contains F.L.’s family history. [ 38 ] F.L., age 17 years, is the eldest child born to Mr.

A.L. and Ms. A.P. He has two younger brothers aged 12 and 10 and all reside at […] in Hamilton.

[ 39 ] F.L. advised that he and his siblings were born in Hamilton. His parents were born in Kosovo and immigrated to Canada in 1999. They have no extended family in Canada. [ 40 ] Mr. L. Senior has had the opportunity to visit family in Kosovo but Ms. P is unable to join him as she is not yet a Canadian citizen and is unable to apply for a visitor’s permit. She sometimes needs translating help speaking English. [ 41 ] Neither parent is employed. They are supported by the Ontario Disability Plan as Mr. L.

Senior sustained injuries in a car accident a number of years ago. [ 42 ] F.L. stated that he has a positive relationship with both parents and is particularly close to his father. [ 43 ] According to F.L.’s mother, F.L. experienced no problems at home, school or in the community until they noticed a change in his behavior in the spring of 2016.

She reported that he would leave home without permission and they were unaware of where he was going, who he would be with or what he would be doing. [ 44 ] During that time, F.L. was often late for his curfew, smoking marijuana, associating with negative peers and regularly was truant from class. He was expelled from the […] Secondary School in June of 2016. [ 45 ] “F.L.’s parents stated that they believe that F.L. was targeted by the administration at […] Secondary School and this contributed to his behavior.” (p. 3) [ 46 ] According to F.L.’s Ontario Student Record he has earned 11 high school credits to date.

Records indicate that from Kindergarten to Secondary School, F.L.’s parents did not attend school meetings regarding F.L.’s education when requested to do so. [ 47 ] Mr. V., Vice Principal at the […] Secondary School, stated that F.L. had issues with attendance and was rarely present at school. Mr. V. stated that he had been in contact with Mr. L. Senior over the phone, and in person, approximately 40 to 50 times regarding F.L.’s defiant behavior, truancy and disrespect to staff and peers. F.L. used profane and inappropriate language towards teachers and peers. Mr.

V. advised of the following suspensions that are of significant concern: • In November of 2014, F.L. was suspended for inappropriate contact with a staff member; • In April of 2015, F.L. was suspended for making inappropriate remarks about a staff member to another student; • In January of 2016, F.L. was suspended for being involved in a physical altercation on school property – a 20 year old male attended the school looking for another student at which time F.L. and his peer engaged in a physical confrontation with the individual; • Mr.

V. reported that F.L. was suspended on three other occasions for making threatening, disrespectful remarks to a staff member and conducting inappropriate physical contact with staff members. [ 48 ] “F.L.’s parents denied that F.L. ever made physical contact with a teacher and blames Mr. V. for F.L.’s expulsion.” (p. 5) [ 49 ] Records provided by the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton show a long history of involvement with the family dating back to 2004. Involvement first occurred in March of 2004 when A.P. attended the police station to report an incidence of spousal abuse by her husband, Mr. A.L.

She reported that her husband was heavily intoxicated, had pulled her hair and kicked her out of the home and she was concerned that F.L. remained in the home sleeping. Police attended the home and Mr. L. Senior was charged with assault. [ 50 ] According to CAS Records, domestic violence has been a continuous pattern in the home.

Reports have been made to the CAS between March of 2004 and June of 2012 by Police, Public Health Workers, Ontario Works Staff and anonymous callers alleging issues of domestic violence, adult conflict in the home, putting the child at risk of emotional harm, and issues regarding insufficient caregiving and supervision.

Some reports were verified and some were not. [ 51 ] At the time of this PSR, the CAS had no involvement with the family. [ 52 ] F.L. reported that he has experienced a great deal of personal shame surrounding the offence and that it has affected his sense of self and impacted his relationship of trust with his parents.

He believes the victim experienced fear and hurt and was agreeable to any conditions the Court deems appropriate, including community service hours. [ 53 ] In the Assessment and Recommendations part of this PSR, it was noted that F.L. should continue to attend the mosque with his father and access spiritual guidance to help him in making positive choices during the present time and in the future.

Comprehensive counselling, educational programming, abstinence from illegal substances, not to associate with anyone with a youth, criminal or drug record and a curfew were also recommended. [ 54 ] Based on the escalating violence on vulnerable women and the contents of the two PSRs, I ordered that both a psychological and a psychiatric assessment be prepared pursuant to s. 34 of the YCJA to assist me in this sentencing. Psychological Assessment Report (Exhibit #7): [ 55 ] This Report was prepared by Dr.

Lott Mamabolo, a clinical and forensic psychologist employed by ROCK (Reach Out Centre for Kids) dated December 20, 2017. [ 56 ] Dr. Mamabolo conducted a number of tests and concluded that F.L.’s intellectual abilities are scattered with the Average and Superior ranges. His verbal abilities fall within the Average range at the 45 th percentile and his performance abilities fall within the Superior range at the 95 th percentile. The significant difference between his Verbal and Performance IQ scores appear to indicate that his nonverbal skills are more developed than his verbal skills.

This difference may reflect a predominately nonverbal cognitive learning

style or greater interest and motivation during nonverbal tasks. Tests of academic achievement revealed F.L.’s language skills fall within the expected grade level while math skills fall below expected grade level. [ 57 ] While at […] ([…] Youth Centre), academically F.L. is doing well at school and has 16 high school credits at the time of this Report. [ 58 ] As of January 4, 2018, F.L. had attained 18 credits. [ 59 ] Personality assessment results show that F.L.’s profile appears similar to that produced by youth who tend to be impulsive. He is likely to demonstrate thoughtless and impulsive behavior.

Beneath his cooperative and controlled façade are marked feelings of personal inadequacy and insecurity that become evident in tendencies to downgrade himself and to anticipate rejection. He believes he is a special person who deserves great admiration from both peers and adults. Based upon the present assessment findings, F.L. should be monitored by mental health practitioners to rule out Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. [ 60 ] F.L. is probably experiencing a moderate level of anxiety.

It would appear beneath his typical surface appearance of constraint and control he is experiencing pervasive anxieties that manifest themselves in indecisiveness and apprehension. [ 61 ] The risk assessment findings indicate that F.L. is at moderate risk for general delinquency or re-involvement with the youth justice system . He has a history of defying rules and expectations for behavior. As well he has a tendency to engage in impulsive behavior, disregarding the needs and rights of others and does not take full responsibility for his actions.

He has a tendency to blame others for his own actions. [ 62 ] F.L. will need to address some of the problems identified in this report within a psychotherapeutic relationship if he is going to put his life back on track. Therapeutic treatment goals should be targeted to his reported self-demeaning tendencies, self-esteem issues, substance misuse issues, stress management, impulsive tendencies, social skills enhancement, problem-solving skills, and at developing coping strategies to learn how to deal with his unstable emotions.

Therapy should also focus on the building of self-confidence without recreating his antisocial and obstructive behavior. The initial efforts in therapy should seek to direct his attention to his strengths (positive relations with his parents and nonverbal abilities). [ 63 ] Dr. Mamabolo’s recommendations included counselling in all of the above-noted areas with a structured probation order that includes monitoring and a referral for a psychiatric consult. Psychiatric Assessment and Report – Exhibit #8: [ 64 ] This Report was prepared by Dr.

Rhodri Evans, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist employed at Kinark Child and Family Services, dated December 29, 2017. [ 65 ] Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Psychiatrist had the benefit of the Psychologist’s Report. [ 66 ] Dr. Evans notes that there were no indications of any post traumatic phenomena and no suggestion of hallucinations or delusions.

F.L. appeared to be of average intellect during their one interview. [ 67 ] “He appears to have become involved with inappropriate behavior in school since the onset of adolescence, with expressed concerns about disrespectful conduct, fighting and non-compliance. His behavior appears to have become increasingly antisocial over the course of time and also displaying increasing levels of aggression and violence.” [ 68 ] “There does not appear to be any indication of any significant mental illness, such as mood disorder or psychosis.

There is no indication of an underlying developmental difficulty, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. However, he suggests that he is aware that he has a problem managing angry feelings and that he tends to behave in an impulsive fashion in most situations.” [ 69 ] “This is a youth who has shown increased antisocial orientation over the course of adolescence with a worrying tendency towards increased levels of violent behavior.

While this is concerning, it should be noted that it is not unusual for antisocial behavior that starts in adolescence to be limited to that phase of life, as opposed to progressing into adulthood . He appears to have significant family support and has a number of pro-social individuals in the community who are supportive of him.

His prognosis will very much depend on his trajectory following his release from custody.” (p. 6) [ 70 ] “He may benefit from a further period of time in custody participating in programming to enable his improved self-control.” [ 71 ] “When he returns to the community he should be supervised by a probation officer and attend counselling directed towards ameliorating some of the criminogenic aspects of his profile.

As he does not show any signs of mental illness, he would not require ongoing psychiatric care.” [ 72 ] “He should abstain from using alcohol and street drugs.” Exhibit #5 – 6 Character Reference Letters and a Letter written by his Parents: [ 73 ] The first letter is written by his girlfriend for the past 2 years. She supports him. [ 74 ] The second letter is by the man who owns a stucco company and is still willing to give F.L. a job as he knows the family. [ 75 ] The third letter is written by a family friend for the past 7 years.

She describes F.L. as helpful and respectful. [ 76 ] The fourth letter is written by a female who has known F.L. for 5 years, though she does not say how. She describes him as thoughtful, sensitive and caring.

[ 77 ] The fifth letter is written by a family member of the man with the stucco business job offer. He writes that he has known the L. family for more than 16 years. F.L. was always a good and responsible child, he looked after his brothers and was a great help to his parents. [ 78 ] The sixth letter is written by a family friend for more than nine years. She knows F.L. as a good student and promising basketball player who wants to get into business school.

Exhibits #10, #11 and #12: [ 79 ] The Defence filed 3 Certificates showing the while in custody, F.L. has completed a Substance Abuse Program on December 12, 2017; a Road to Redemption Program on January 2 nd , 2018; a Hub Anger Management Program on December 2, 2017. Position of the Parties: [ 80 ] Sentencing submissions were heard on January 4, 2018. [ 81 ] During the course of that hearing, both Crown and defence counsel agreed that pursuant to s. 42(2)(

n) of the YCJA , I can sentence F.L. to a period of custody that exceeds 3 years for these 4 offences. [ 82 ] The pre-trial custody accrued as of January 4 th , 2018 was 85 days. As earlier noted in these reasons, today’s count is 114 days. Defence counsel has asked me to consider granting F.L. enhanced credit for his pre-trial custody. Given that he was on a Deferred Custody Order for Robbery at the time he committed these 2 Robberies, I have determined that F.L. is not a candidate for enhanced credit. His poor behavior at times while in custody reinforces this position.

Ancilliary Orders: [ 83 ] There is no dispute with respect to these Orders. [ 84 ] The 2 Robberies are designated Primary Offences for DNA Orders and I make those Orders accordingly. [ 85 ] The Weapons Prohibition Orders are mandatory and pursuant to s. 51. (2) of the YCJA, I make those Order accordingly on both Robberies for a period of 5 years.

Crown’s Position: [ 86 ] The Crown is requesting a 9 month concurrent sentence on all counts minus the 85 days of pre-trial custody, leaving a remaining custodial sentence of 6 months. [ 87 ] Since the pre-trial custody count has increased as of today, the Crown’s position would be 9 months minus 3.8 months, leaving a remaining sentence of approximately 5 months. [ 88 ] The Crown stated that they have taken a low position on sentence given that the victims in this case would have created difficulties in proving the case. [ 89 ] “I think the real point that the Crown needs to make here is why the Crown is taking such a lenient position and I think the Crown’s position is lenient for a young man on a Deferred Custody and probation sentence for such a serious first YCJA disposition because of the unique difficulties of proof in cases involving workers in the sex trade, that it’s difficult for them to testify. [ 90 ] It’s difficult for them.

They come to court often with problematic lives. They struggle and it’s difficult to often get them here and I think that that is why the Crown’s position has been lenient. I think he has to deserve real credit for this guilty plea.” (Transcript, Jan. 4/18, p.1) [ 91 ] The Crown is also requesting a 2 year Probation Order with strict terms. Defence Position: [ 92 ] The Defence requests a sentence of 6 months concurrent on all counts minus the pre-trial custody. [ 93 ] That would result in a remaining custodial sentence of 2 months and 2 weeks. [ 94 ] The proposed Probation Order is on consent.

Electronic Supervision Program Technology Report Order: [ 95 ] Following the submissions, and with the consent of counsel, I ordered that an ESP assessment report be prepared to assist me with respect to terms of F.L.’s Probation Order. I was concerned that the eventual return to the community would be the same arrangement that resulted in him being back before the Youth Court having committed escalating crimes of violence. [ 96 ] A letter dated January 15, 2018 was prepared by Kent Chapman, Probation Manager of Youth Justice Services.

That letter was sent to counsel for their written submissions, if any, to me on the use of ESP in this sentencing. [ 97 ] That letter is now marked as Exhibit #14 at this sentencing Hearing. [ 98 ] In the letter it is stated: “Although the YCJA does not permit ESP as a stand-alone sanction, a court could order it as a condition of a Probation Order since s. 55.(2)(

h) permits the court to include any condition that it considers appropriate.”

A youth justice court may prescribe, as conditions of an order made under paragraph 42(2)(

k) or (l), that a young person do one or more of the following that the youth justice court considers appropriate in the circumstances: ... (

h) comply with any other conditions set out in the order that the youth justice court considers appropriate, including conditions for securing the young person’s good conduct and for preventing the young person from repeating the offence or committing other offences. [ 99 ] In further written submissions received by the Crown on January 25, 2018, it is noted that the Electronic Supervision Resource Officer Unit has advised that they do not facilitate these reports or electronic monitoring for youth.

They only monitor adults who are serving a Conditional Sentence, Temporary Absence or Parole. [ 100 ] In my view this kind of monitoring would have been suitable for F.L. It is unfortunate that this Program has not been expanded to include youth who are at risk to re-offend violently. [ 101 ] On January 29, 2018, Ms. Wilhelm wrote that she has inquired into the price for electronic monitoring and provided her research in that regard, http://www.recoveryscience.ca/pricing-criminal. Ms.

Wilhelm writes that it appears that there is an initial installation fee of $250.00 and a monthly cost of $390.00 or $540.00 depending on which type of monitoring is required. [ 102 ] Ms. Wilhelm has spoken to Mr. L. Senior, who advises that although this is not an insignificant expense, if the Court makes this part of an order, the family will bear the cost. [ 103 ] I have determined that since the L. family is supported by ODSP that this is not a reasonable option in this case.

Decision as to Custodial Sentence: [ 104 ] I have considered and credit F.L. for his guilty pleas, but I do not fully accept the position of the Crown that the nature of employment of the victims in this case would have presented difficulties of proof. There is no evidentiary basis for this position.

All the victims immediately contacted and cooperated with the police and one of the victims prepared a Victim Impact Statement for the Court. [ 105 ] Secondly, I reject both counsels’ submission that a global concurrent sentence is the right way to sentence F.L. [ 106 ] He committed two separate Robberies and those sentences should be consecutive. [ 107 ] He flagrantly breached the terms of his Deferred Custody Order.

Given that this order was collapsed, and considering totality, I have determined that concurrent sentences are appropriate on those two counts. [ 108 ] I am aware of and have applied the sentencing principles set out in s. 3.(1) (a) (

i) through (iv) of the YCJA . [ 109 ] F.L. was on a Deferred Custody house arrest Court Order when he committed the first Robbery on August 24, 2017. [ 110 ] I have determined that a sentence of 5 months is appropriate in all the circumstances on that Count. [ 111 ] The very next day, he committed an even more violent Robbery causing injury to his victim with a knife, choking her and stating that he had a firearm. [ 112 ] A sentence of 6 months consecutive is appropriate on that Count. [ 113 ] With respect to breaching his Deferred Custody Order for Robbing and injuring an 81-year-old woman, his sentence is 3 months concurrent to each other and concurrent to the Robbery sentences. [ 114 ] His total custodial sentence is 11 months minus 3.8 months of pre-trial custody.

I will round-up his pre-trial custody to 4 months to make the sentence clear. The remaining custodial sentence is 7 months.

Probation Orders: [ 115 ] Following his release from custody, F.L. will be subject to a 2 year Probation Order on all Counts concurrent with the following conditions in addition to the statutory conditions: • Report to your Youth Worker as directed; • Reside at an address approved by your Youth Worker. • Not to communicate in any manner, or be within 20 metres of R.C., I.T. or E.M. • Not to attend within 200 metres of any place known to you to be the place of employment, residence or education of the above named individuals • Not to attend on the premises/property of any hotel or motel unless on a family vacation with a parent, and preapproved in writing by your Youth Worker • Not to possess any weapons, including knives except for eating • Not to communicate with any person, by any means, including electronically, for the purpose of arranging sexual services for consideration

• Counselling as directed and sign releases for monitoring of same • Attend school full time and/or be gainfully employed and provide proof of same to your Youth Worker • Not to associate or communicate with any person with a youth, drug, or criminal record, except family members, or when on school property for purposes of the Education Act, or as permitted in writing by your Youth Worker • Abide by a curfew to be in your approved residence between the hours of 10 pm to 6 am, except as pre-approved in writing by your Youth Worker, and present yourself at the door of your residence when requested by a peace officer • Not to possess or consume any non-medically prescribed drugs • Keep the Peace and be of Good Behaviour [ 116 ] A copy of both the Psychological and Psychiatric Report shall be forwarded to the Youth Probation Officer, along with these Reasons for Sentence, to assist in supervising F.L. when he is released from custody. [ 117 ] The remaining Charges are withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

Released: February 2, 2018 Signed: Justice Lesley M. Baldwin ADDENDUM: F.L.’s Warrant of Committal reads as follows: Commit Robbery – August 24 th , 2017 11 Months less PTC 4 months for a balance of 140 days to be served in Custody and 70 days to be served pursuant to ss. 42(2)(

n) under Supervision in the Community; Commit Robbery – August 25th, 2017 11 Months l4ess PTC 4 months for a balance of 140 days to be served in Custody and 70 days to be served pursuant to ss. 42(2)(

n) under Supervision in the Community – concurrent.