R. v. McLaughlin, 2020 ONCJ 566

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. McLaughlin , 2020 ONCJ 566 DATE: 2020-12-02 COURT FILE Nos.: Toronto 18-15006776 & 18-15006777 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent — AND — DEAN McLAUGHLIN Applicant Before Justice Patrice F. Band Reasons for Sentence Ms. K. Visic................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown Ms. K. Duncan................................................................................. counsel for Mr. McLaughlin BAND J.: I. Introduction 1 . On August 31, 2018, police saw Mr.

McLaughlin driving a stolen SUV with stolen license plates and began to pursue him. The events culminated in a police chase during which Mr. McLaughlin, the sole occupant of the SUV, drove in a dangerous manner through Toronto’s business district at rush hour in an attempt to evade police. In doing so, he caused damage to a number of vehicles and put lives at risk. When he crashed and came to a stop, he attempted to run away. In the process, he knocked down a pedestrian, who lost consciousness as a result. After putting up a struggle, Mr. McLaughlin was arrested and the stolen SUV was searched.

It contained a large amount of stolen property, break-in instruments and approximately 2 oz. of crystal methamphetamine. Over a dozen individuals were directly affected by this series of events. Some were physically harmed. Some suffered damage to their motor vehicles. Some lost property that had been stolen from them during recent break-ins and thefts. Many more were affected by the road closures that followed. 2 . At the time, Mr. McLaughlin was bound by two probation orders prohibiting him from possessing identity and banking documents not issued in his own name. He was also suspended from driving. 3 .

On September 9, 2020, Mr. McLaughlin pleaded guilty to the following offences: − Possession of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking – CDSA s. 5(2) − Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – CC s. 249(1)(a) − Failing to stop for police – CC s. 249.1(1) − Possession of property obtained by crime “over” – the SUV – CC s. 354(1)

− Possession of property obtained by crime “under” – the license plate – CC s. 354(1) − Fail to comply with probation x 2 (CC s. 733.1), and − Possession of break-in instruments – CC s. 351(1). 4. A detailed description of these offences is set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts attached as Appendix “A” to thesereasons. It includes additional facts that were read in as aggravating factors. II. Positions of the Parties The Crown’s position 5.

The Crown seeks a “global” penitentiary sentence of 4 years less pre-sentence custody, which she would apportion asfollows: for the CDSA count, 2.5 years; for the possession of the stolen SUV, 4 months (consecutive); for the dangerous driving, 6months (consecutive); for the flight form police, 6 months (consecutive); and for the possession of the license plate, the breaches ofprobation, and possession of break-in instruments, she seeks 4 months (concurrent to one another but consecutive to the other sentences). She would round down the actual total to 4 years owing to totality. 6.

Given the nature of the charges and Mr. McLaughlin’s criminal record, the Crown submits that deterrence, denunciationand protection of the public are the central principles in play. Rehabilitation, while always relevant, pulls only weakly in this case. Mr.McLaughlin has a history of breaching court orders, his past efforts at rehabilitation have not been successful and his release plan is notconcrete. 7. The Crown also seeks a four year driving prohibition, a DNA order and a s. 109 order. Mr. McLaughlin’s position 8. Mr.

McLaughlin seeks a sentence of “time served” which he calculates as 2 years once all credit is given. He wouldapportion it as follows: for the CDSA count, 1.5 years; for the flight form police, 6 months (consecutive); for the dangerous driving, 6months (concurrent); and for all other offences, concurrent sentences ranging from 15-30 days. 9. Mr. McLaughlin does not dispute the imposition of DNA and s. 109 orders. He was silent with respect to the drivingprohibition. III. The Issues 10. The main points of disagreement between the parties are the following: i.

The appropriate range of sentence for the CDSA offence; ii. Whether the driving offences ought to be served consecutively to one another; iii. The credit to be given to Mr. McLaughlin for the various aspects of the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody;and iv. The relevance of the COVID-19 pandemic to the sentence going forward. IV. The Principles of Sentencing 11.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, torespect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of theobjectives listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate: see s.718.1 of the Criminal Code. 12. A proportionate sentence is one that is individualized. In other words, it is one that is deserved by the offender: see R. v.Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , 2015 3 SCR 1089.

Proportionality requires that the court consider the gravity of the offence and themoral blameworthiness of the offender. It is determined both on an individual basis – that is in relation to the accused herself and theoffence she committed, and by comparison to sentences imposed on other offenders for offences committed in similar circumstances. 13. In relation to the first branch of the proportionality analysis, the circumstances of the accused are relevant: see R. v. Davies,2017 ONCA 467. This second factor, known as the principle of parity, requires that like cases be treated alike.

This of course is not anexact science. It is difficult and sometimes impossible to find other cases that are similar in all important respects. 14. I agree with the Crown that general deterrence and denunciation must occupy a prominent place in this matter. However, asI will discuss below, I believe that the Crown’s global position pays insufficient tribute to a number of factors, including the principle ofrestraint and to Mr. McLaughlin’s rehabilitative prospects. V. Resolution of the Main Points of Disagreement i. The appropriate range of sentence for the CDSA offence

15 . The Crown submits that the sentencing range for possession of approximately 2 oz. of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking is 2.5 - 4 years. She cites a number of cases in support of her argument, including R. v. Graham , 2017 ONCA 245 and R. v. Ticzon , 2018 ONCA 198 . 16 . Mr. McLaughlin submits that the range starts at 18 months. While no cases are cited for this proposition, counsel filed cases in which conditional sentences of two years (or two years less a day) were imposed: see, for example, R. v. Tarnowski , [2010] M.J. No. 293 (Man. Q.B.) and R. v. Zaryski , [2011] O.J.

No. 799 (Ont. C.J.) . By extrapolation, then, 18 months in jail is acceptable. 17 . I agree with the Crown that the cases filed by the defence are not representative of the current state of the law. They predate the amendments to the legislation that moved crystal methamphetamine to

Schedule 1. They also do not reflect what we currently know about this drug: it has extremely profound impacts on its users and the community. It is also dangerous to produce. 18 . In Ticzon , a sentence of three years was upheld. In Graham , the Court of Appeal found that two years was a fit sentence in the circumstances and stated that three years is at the “high end” of the range. In Ticzon , the accused’s record was minor and unrelated. In Graham , the accused had “very difficult background circumstances.” Both men were in their late 20s. 19 .

The low end of the range, therefore, appears to be two years. (ii) Whether the driving offences ought to be served consecutively to one another 20 . The Crown argues that two appellate cases from Ontario demonstrate the principle that the sentences for dangerous driving and flight from police must be applied consecutively: R. v. Sturge , [2001] O.J. No. 3923 (C.A.) and R. v. Forestell , [2016] O.J. No. 2810 (S.C.C.A.) . I disagree. First, the language of s. 718.3(4) is permissive. Second, the

section compels sentencing judges to consider a number of factors, including when “one of the offences was committed while the accused was fleeing from police,” and when “the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events”: see ss. 718.3(4)(b)(iii)) and (b)(i), respectively (my emphasis). On the facts of this case, there is an apparent tension between these factors. It can be resolved by appeal the facts of Sturge itself. 21 . In Sturge , the accused encountered police shortly after committing some robberies. He did not stop as requested. Instead, he sped off, striking an officer.

He then continued to drive dangerously, culminating in a serious crash. When police arrived to apprehend him, he assaulted and injured one of them. The Court explained that the purpose of imposing consecutive sentences for flight from police is to correct those who might be tempted to think that it is “worth the risk” relative to the offence they seek to get away with: see para. 6. [1] It is clearly on that basis that the Court in Sturge ordered that the sentences for the driving offences had to be served consecutively to those for the robberies.

While the sentences for the driving offences were also made to run consecutively to one another, it is not as clear that the Court’s intention was to create a hard and fast rule about dangerous driving and flight from police. 22 . I appreciate that the Code refers to offences committed while in flight. However, when an offence overlaps completely with the flight or constitutes the “same series of events,” as it does in this case, I am concerned that consecutive sentences might lead to unjust results. I suggest that one way to resolve this apparent conundrum is to ask the following question: what offence(

s) was the accused trying to get away with? 23 . On the facts of this case, it borders on the absurd to posit that Mr. McLaughlin was trying to get away with the dangerous driving he was engaged in as he was attempting to evade police. What he was trying to do was avoid being caught red-handed in a stolen SUV full of contraband. 24 . By contrast, the same question does not lead to absurdity on the facts of Sturge . When first confronted, Mr. Sturge struck a police officer with his vehicle. That, in itself, constituted dangerous driving.

It is reasonable to conclude that he then fled to attempt to get away not only with the robberies, but also the collision with the officer. 25 . The fact that Justice Hill upheld consecutive sentences for dangerous driving and flight from police in Forestell does not meaningfully support the Crown’s argument. The sentencing judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences was not among the grounds of appeal: see para. 5. The challenge was to the “global sentence”, which Justice Hill found to be fit: see paras. 21, 28 and 31. 26 . In this case, Mr.

McLaughlin’s sentences for the driving offences should run concurrently. iii. Pre-sentence credit 27 . On the date of sentencing, Mr. McLaughlin will have spent 457 days in pre-sentence custody. It is agreed that he is entitled to Summers credit at the 1.5:1 ratio for all of those days, for a total of 686 days. The dispute surrounds the treatment that two periods within that time should receive: (

a) time he spent in custody after a sentence had expired due to a clerical error (“administrative error credit”) and (

b) Duncan credit for time spent in full and partial “lockdown” while at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”). (

a) Administrative Error Credit 28 . Mr. McLaughlin was sentenced to a period of 5 months less pre-sentence custody for a number of offences that he committed in another jurisdiction while on bail for the offences before this Court. Regrettably, the information that was written down on the official documents did not include the reduction for time already served. Consequently, he was held in custody as though he had been sentenced to serve 5 months. Had the paperwork been completed properly, he would have been releasable on March 26, 2020 as his bail on these charges had not been revoked.

Instead, he was held until mid-June. At that time, the error became apparent to Ms. Visic, who advised defence counsel and arranged to have Mr. McLaughlin quickly brought to court. At the same time, Ms. Visic applied to have Mr. McLaughlin’s bail cancelled pursuant to s. 524 of the Code . Once the paperwork was before the court, I was required to cancel Mr. McLaughlin’s and I did so. I later denied his application for bail. 29 . Mr. McLaughlin argues that he should receive additional credit for the 85 days that he spent in custody as a result of the administrative error.

The Crown argues that he should receive no more than Summers credit because the error was one of inadvertence

and the Crown was subsequently able to have his bail cancelled. Had the Crown sought to cancel his bail on March 26, she would have succeeded. The Crown also argues that Mr. McLaughlin and his counsel (in the other jurisdiction), who were present in court on the date of sentencing, knew the date on which he could expect to be released. Neither of them did anything about it. 30 . Neither party submitted case-law on this issue. To the extent that it has arisen in other matters, it was argued pursuant to the Charter . Mr. McLaughlin has made no such argument. 31 .

The Charter aside, I disagree with the Crown’s position. The error may have been inadvertent, but it had a real impact on Mr. McLaughlin’s liberty. It should not have happened. It is a fluke that Mr. McLaughlin had outstanding charges. In another matter, a mistake of this sort can have consequences that can not be mitigated. I would give little weight to the Crown’s argument that Mr. McLaughlin bore the onus of figuring out what went wrong in these circumstances. He had been transferred from one jail to another before his true sentence had run its course. He was in no position to sort this out.

And, again, he had no

part in the error. I am also not inclined to treat the Crown’s successful s. 524 application as a salve. It took place months almost three months after Mr. McLaughlin’s sentence had expired. The situation might be different if the Crown had expressed an intention to cancel Mr. McLaughlin’s bail at the time of his guilty plea or before his expected release in March. There is no such indication here. 32 . The Crown’s overall position, rooted as it is in principles like deterrence and denunciation, aims to reinforce Mr. McLaughlin’s and others’ respect for the law. Mr.

McLaughlin is entitled to feel wronged by the administration of justice and the error it committed in his last case. If his respect for the court and the law are to be encouraged, his disappointment should not be compounded by their indifference. 33 . I would therefore give Mr. McLaughlin some credit for the error. (

b) Duncan Credit 34 . Mr. McLaughlin has been subjected to “full” or “partial” lockdowns for at least 118 of his 457 days at the TSDC. 44 of them were “partial” in the sense that they were said to begin at a certain hour in the morning. 38 of those have no end time listed. 22 list start times of 6:00 p.m. or later. On ten occasions, the lockdowns took place on three or more consecutive days. Four of those lasted four to six days. All but four of the total number of lockdowns were due to “staff shortages.” 35 . The Crown argues that Mr.

McLaughlin has failed to meet the evidentiary onus imposed on him by the case-law to demonstrate that he is entitled to any additional credit for harsh pre-sentence conditions. His affidavit does not detail any particular hardships or deprivations that he has endured. 36 . Mr. McLaughlin seeks additional credit at the rate of 1.5:1, as was granted in R. v. Persad , 2020 ONSC 188 and R. v. Clark , 2020 ONSC 3878 . 37 . It is true that, unlike the accused in Persad and Clark , Mr. McLaughlin has not provided evidence of any particular impact the lockdowns have had on him.

His affidavit focuses more on the impact of COVID-19. However, that is not the end of the analysis. The TSDC has been repeatedly criticized by the courts for its resort to lockdowns because of staffing issues. Those lockdowns create conditions that have been described as inhumane and inexcusable. I believe that this is now a notorious fact about which I can take judicial notice. 38 . The day after I heard counsel’s final submissions in this matter, the Ontario court of Appeal released its decision in R. v. Powell , 2020 ONCA 743 .

At para. 30 of its reasons, the Court wrote that the TSDC … has also been the subject of scathing criticism for several years from many judges regarding the manner in which it is operated, and the consequent impact on the individuals housed there. A consistent theme in this criticism is the excessive number of lockdowns that occur in that facility: see, for example, the

summary in R. v. Persad , 2020 ONSC 188 , at para. 29 . 39 . I believe that it is incumbent upon me to give Mr. McLaughlin some Duncan credit based on the evidence before me – if not for what can be inferred about the adverse effects on him then in order to reflect society’s collective interest in ensuring that state agents “respect the rule of law and the shared values of our society”: see Persad , at paras. 35-36 . In this case, where no end time is listed, there is no practical purpose in treating the “partial” lockdowns beginning in the morning any differently than the “full” days. iv.

The impact of COVID going forward 40 . The Crown agrees that the pandemic can be a collateral consequence for the purpose of sentencing, so long as it is not used to reduce a sentence to the point that it is no longer proportionate: see R. v. Morgan , 2020 ONCA 279 at paras. 9-10 . However, in the absence of a unique vulnerability or other specific risk (such as an outbreak in the institution), she argues that any credit in this case would be inherently speculative and would run the risk of reducing an otherwise fit sentence: see, for example, R. v. Blake , 2020 ONSC 5658 , at paras. 76-81 .

She also points out, correctly, that the parole boards can take the pandemic into account when deciding whether to grant parole. 41 . Mr. McLaughlin relies on decisions like R. v. Hearns , 2020 ONSC 2365 to argue the contrary. He also points to the evidence found in his affidavit. 42 . In response to a question of mine, the Crown acknowledged that time spent in custody during the pandemic is harsher than it otherwise would be, all things being equal. To me, that is an inescapable truth, if only with respect to one’s mental health. The pandemic has made life more difficult and stressful for all of us.

The courts have taken judicial notice of the fact that one’s ability to maintain social distance and proper hygiene is seriously hampered if not rendered impossible in the jail setting. Courts have also stated that the risk of infection is higher in jail. 43 . As I have written before, I agree that our jails have done a very good job of controlling and reducing risk. [2] There is

evidence that the pandemic has led to lockdowns and reductions in programming for that purpose. That such measures contribute to infection control does not change the fact that they also make conditions of incarceration harsher. 44 . I also note that in Blake , there was no evidence that the accused was “concerned about the threat of infection”: see para. 81. By contrast, Mr. McLaughlin says this in his affidavit, at paras. 13-15: The time I have spent at the Toronto South Detention Centre in 2020 has been scary .

We are exposed daily to people who have unrestricted access to outside, and we are given nothing to protect ourselves from possible infection. If an inmate on my range feels ill, or has a headache, we are immediately confined to our cells until that person is either cleared or removed from the range. There have been new inmates to my range over the course of the last few months who have described people being sick with COVID-19, but not demonstrating any symptoms – the stress of not knowing if you are exposed to a sick person is overwhelming (my emphasis).

Fears of this nature are inevitably going to continue for Mr. McLaughlin, who will be serving the remainder of his sentence in a provincial institution. 45 . Finally, I agree with what Pomerance J. wrote in Hearns . In particular, I agree that a sentence can be fit even if it is not perfectly proportionate when, for example, the conditions of detention are harsher than they otherwise might be expected to be: see para. 16. 46 . It is also important to understand the context in which this case is being heard. We are in the second wave of the pandemic.

The numbers in Southern Ontario are staggering, and have exceeded the peaks of the first wave. Toronto and Peel are currently in a government-imposed lockdown. This reality is a collateral consequence that ought to be reflected in Mr. McLaughlin’s sentence. VI. Mr. McLaughlin’s Personal Circumstances 47 . I learned the following from the pre-sentence report (“PSR”) and counsel’s submissions. Mr. McLaughlin is 23 years old. At the time of the offences, he was 21 years old. When he was a toddler, his parents separated and his father moved to New Brunswick, where he still lives.

When he was 11, his mother began living with another man. Mr. McLaughlin struggled to adapt but now has a cordial relationship with him. As a small boy, Mr. McLaughlin lost his grandmother, with whom he was close. According to his mother, this had a profound effect on him. When he was a teenager, his mother was hospitalized for lengthy periods owing to mental illness. During that time, Mr. McLaughlin, who described himself as a “bad kid”, was difficult to control. He was kicked out of the home at 16. It was in those years that he began using alcohol and other substances.

He was able to join the workforce around that time. He was able to complete high school while maintaining his employment. He also began selling drugs to supplement his income. 48 . At 18, Mr. McLaughlin became involved with a woman who had three children. After dating for a short while, they got married. His wife struggled with addiction to the point that Mr. McLaughlin became responsible for the care of her children. His drug use also increased. The two separated when he was accused of domestic violence. As a result of his responsibilities and lifestyle, he lost his job.

In this period, between 2015 and 2018, Mr. McLaughlin was caught in a cycle in which he was selling drugs to sustain the increasing demands of his habit. To keep up, he began using more and more stimulants. At its peak, his habit cost him several hundred dollars per day. 49 . Mr. McLaughlin has been on a methadone program in the past, which he would like to resume. He has no mental health diagnoses but believes that he suffers from depression and anxiety. He is fearful that he also suffers from a psychotic illness, like his mother. He told counsel that at the time of these offences, he had begun to hear voices.

This contributed to his drug use, in the form of self-medication. 50 . Mr. McLaughlin remains in contact with both of his parents. His plan upon release is to move to New Brunswick, where he can live with his father and a construction job is available to him. He feels he needs a “fresh start,” away from his negative peer groups in Windsor and Toronto. 51 . As the author of the PSR points out, Mr. McLaughlin is amenable to counseling.

While in custody, he has completed upwards of five programs, including “Changing Habits.” However, she has reservations about his plans to move to New Brunswick, insofar as they do not seem to account for the challenges that the pandemic presents, among others. 52 . Mr. McLaughlin expressed remorse to the author of the PSR for his actions. VII. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 53 . The aggravating factors in this case include: the harmful nature of crystal methamphetamine, which I have discussed above; the fact that Mr.

McLaughlin was engaged in the drug trade for profit to some extent; the seriousness of the driving, including collisions and the danger posed to others, as well as the protracted inconvenience it caused to countless commuters; the harm he did to a citizen when attempting to run away from police; the quantity of contraband in the SUV; and the fact that Mr. McLaughlin was on probation and was a suspended driver at the time. 54 . Mr. McLaughlin’s criminal record is also an aggravating factor, but it must be addressed with care. Many of the entries are for offences Mr.

McLaughlin committed after the offences before the court. The Crown agrees that these speak only to character and prospects for rehabilitation. They do not support an argument concerning the need for deterrence or a “jump” in sentencing. Most

importantly, they involve sentences that are much longer than those that Mr. McLaughlin received before committing these offences. While some of the earlier entries are cognate – property offences and a retainable youth entry for impaired driving – the longest sentence imposed on Mr. McLaughlin prior to August 2018 was 75 days. The longest sentence ever imposed on Mr. McLaughlin was the equivalent of 11 months (in 2019). 55 . The mitigating factors include the following. Mr. McLaughlin has pleaded guilty to a number of offences. He has accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for his wrongdoing.

In doing so, he has saved the public the costs associated with a trial. It must be acknowledged that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, unresolved cases have been accumulating and court time is at a premium. While it was not an early plea, I accept that it had been his intention to resolve these matters for quite some time. Even though he was caught “red-handed”, the guilty pleas are meaningful. Mr. McLaughlin’s time spent in pre-sentence custody is also a mitigating factor. 56 . Mr. McLaughlin suggested that he does not remember much about these offences, as he was under the influence of drugs at the time.

The Crown disputes this – at least to the extent that he was not admitted to hospital after his arrest. Given the outrageous behaviour he exhibited, I am inclined to believe that he was intoxicated. This would put some of his decisions and behaviour in context. But even if that is not so, I accept that he was in the clutches of the cycle he described in the PSR, which included addiction to serious narcotics. It attenuates his culpability to some degree. I also accept that that cycle helps explain his pattern of offending since 2018. That, of course, gives rise to serious concerns about the future.

Nonetheless, I also accept that Mr. McLaughlin remains a candidate for rehabilitation. First, he is youthful; he committed these offences when he was 21 years old. Second, he is remorseful and has expressed some insight into the harm he has done. Third, he has availed himself of many programs while in custody. Fourth, he has made attempts to address his addiction, including a methadone program. Fifth, he plans to remove himself from risky surroundings and continue with his rehabilitation and treatment. 57 . The Crown is right to point out that Mr.

McLaughlin’s plans going forward are not concrete, and may very well be met with obstacles. But it is important not to confuse potential weaknesses in a rehabilitative plan with the absence of rehabilitative prospects : see R. v. Disher , 2020 ONCA 710 , at paras. 16-22 . 58 . Mr. McLaughlin’s challenging personal background circumstances must also be recognized. VIII. The Fit Sentence 59 . In light of the foregoing, I find that a “global” sentence of two years and 10 months is proportionate.

I would apportion it as follows: for the CDSA offence: two years; for the flight from police: six months (consecutive); for the dangerous driving: six months (concurrent); for the possession of the stolen SUV: four months (consecutive). The low end of the range for possession of 2 oz. of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking is appropriate in this case, particularly because it is Mr. McLaughlin’s first CDSA offence. The six month sentences for the driving offences are the maximum allowed for

summary conviction offences of their type, and are appropriate given the aggravating factors. Four months for possessing the stolen vehicle is also appropriate, given the aggravating factors. 60 . For the remaining offences, with totality in mind, I would sentence Mr. McLaughlin to concurrent sentences as follows: possession of the stolen license plate: 30 days; possession of break-in tools: 60 days; and fail to comply probation (possessing ID etc.) x 2: 30 days on each. 61 . Mr.

McLaughlin will receive credit for his pre-sentence custody as follows: − Summers credit: 686 days (457 days x 1.5), the equivalent of 23 months − Administrative error credit: an additional 30 days − Duncan credit: an additional 60 days 62 . The remainder, eight months, will be reduced by one month to account for the impacts that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on his remaining time to serve. In the circumstances, I find that two years and nine months is a fit sentence. 63 . The net result is a further period of seven months in jail left to serve. 64 . I also make an order prohibiting Mr.

McLaughlin from operating a motor vehicle or conveyance anywhere in Canada for a period of four years. This will assist in protecting the public. 65 . I also place Mr. McLaughlin on probation for a period of 24 months with appropriate terms, including counseling. This will assist him in his rehabilitation and protect the public. 66 . Mr. McLaughlin will be ordered to provide a sample of his DNA. 67 . Mr. McLaughlin will also be prohibited from possessing weapons pursuant to s. 109 of the Code . Released: December 2, 2020

Justice Patrice F. Band APPENDIX “A” AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The incident occurred on Friday, August 31, 2018 at King Street West and Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario. 2. Prior to that date, on Saturday August 25, 2018, the owner of a 2017 Ford Explorer reported that his vehicle was stolen from his residence at 833 Legacy Grove Drive, LaSalle, ON. 3. On August 31, 2018, Mr. McLaughlin is observed operating the aforementioned stolen vehicle on Pearl Street at University Avenue with a stolen license plate, BWEC 111, attached.

This license plate was reported stolen on August 27, 2019 to the Ontario Provincial Police – Essex. Nadia Preston noticed her rear plate missing on August 27, 2018 while she was out for groceries: BWEC111. There were 3 bolts missing on her front license plate but it was still there. 4. The vehicle was originally parked illegally with no one inside at Queen Street West and University Avenue. A parking enforcement officer ran the plate and the VIN number. Both were on file as stolen. The front plate and the rear plate were different. 5. Mr. McLaughlin then returned to the vehicle and the vehicle left the area.

Parking enforcement advised the police of the last direction of travel and the vehicle was eventually spotted by the police approximately 3 minutes later at Pearl and University. 6. Officers followed Mr. McLaughlin in the stolen vehicle around several blocks. At 5:34pm, officers turned on their lights and pursued him. The incident was caught on the In-Car-Cameras by three different police vehicles, who were all pursuing Mr. McLaughlin. 7. PC Poirier tried to pull the vehicle over, but Mr. McLaughlin immediately accelerated and maneuvered through traffic to try and get away. 8. Taking over the bike lane, Mr.

McLaughlin proceeded westbound on Adelaide then made a quick right on Bay Street travelling southbound in the northbound lane. Mr. McLaughlin mounted the curb to make this quick turn, narrowly missing the cyclists. While travelling the wrong way, he then squeezed the SUV between two taxis driving towards him, causing damage to all three vehicles. He repeated the same manoeuvre, moments later, between two other cars. In total, five vehicles were damaged as a result of Mr. McLaughlin trying to flee from three police cars who were trying to pull him over. 9.

After sideswiping the vehicles, he then made a quick left on King Street West and lost control of the SUV, striking a concrete jersey barrier on the south east corner of the intersection, striking a cab and just missing several pedestrians. 10. The vehicle came to a stop and Mr. McLaughlin quickly exited the vehicle and attempted to flee on foot. Officers gave chase, but Mr. McLaughlin bumped into a citizen which slowed him down and the citizen prevented him from running further so the police were able to apprehend him. 11. Mr. McLaughlin collided with Bella Garvaki, who was knocked down and lost consciousness.

She attended the hospital numerous times for treatment of her injuries. There was no specific charge laid in relation to this. Ms. Garvaki can be seen on the ground with another pedestrian helping her get up. 12. All videos demonstrate that there was a lot of vehicular traffic, persons on bikes, and foot traffic on this Friday afternoon downtown. 13. While the officers were trying to arrest Mr. McLaughlin, he was yelling, not giving up his arms to be handcuffed, kicked with his legs, sat on his legs and Emergency Task Force officers were needed for him to be successfully arrested.

He was eventually arrested and read his rights to counsel. The sounds of struggle can be heard on the In-Car-Camera video D. 14. He was then transported to the hospital to be examined by a doctor for the injuries he may have sustained during the incident. He was cleared by medical staff at the hospital and transported to 52 Division and held pending a show cause hearing. Car crash/damage to vehicles: 15. While trying to flee from the police, Mr. McLaughlin sideswipes four vehicles then makes a left turn, losing control and hitting a concrete barrier, making the car inoperable in front of a TTC streetcar.

The vehicles that were damaged as part of the incident: a. The Ford Explorer that McLaughlin was driving – Richard Paliani’s car i. The stolen Ford’s airbags were deployed and there was extensive damage to the vehicle b. The four cars that were sideswiped all had exterior damage: i. Driver: Perry Chan of 2014 Toyota Camry

ii. Driver: Thomas Greenberg – 2018 Audi Q7 iii. Driver: Tsehay Degaga – 2015 Toyota Camry iv. Driver: Akhtar Bokhari – 2014 Toyota Camry c. The taxi that is hit when Mr. McLaughlin loses control after hitting the barrier d. All six victims indicated that their vehicle losses were covered by insurance. 16. During the afternoon downtown rush hour, the TTC streetcar that was immediately in front of the Ford Explorer crash was not able to continue service for a couple hours. Officers tried to move the vehicle so that the traffic could continue, but were unable to.

The intersection of University Avenue and King Street was closed for a couple hours. Search incident to arrest: 17. When Mr. McLaughlin was searched incident to his arrest, officers located an Ontario Driver’s License and Ontario Health Card in the name of Adam Keys and an Ontario Driver’s license in the name of Erin MacDonald. Failure to Comply with Probation Orders 18.

A 12 month probation order was imposed on March 26, 2018 by Justice Kowalyshyn in Chatham-Kent, ON, with the condition “Do not possess any ID card with a data strip, or security strip, credit card or debit card, blank card with a magnetic strip, cheque, negotiable instrument or banking document unless it has been lawfully issued in your name.” 19.

A 24 month probation order was imposed on May 29, 2018 in Windsor by Justice Campbell, with the condition “Do not possess any ID card with a data strip, or security strip, credit card or debit card, blank card with a magnetic strip, cheque, negotiable instrument or banking document unless it has been lawfully issued in your name.” 20. By having the aforementioned property that was not lawfully issued to Mr. McLaughlin’s, he was in breach of both probation orders. Drive while under suspension 21. On August 5, 2016, McLaughlin’s Ontario Driver’s License was suspended for Remedial under the HTA.

The suspension was indefinite, and therefore Mr. McLaughlin was operating a vehicle on August 31, 2018 while suspended from driving. Abandoned Car Search 22. The Ford Explorer SUV was abandoned by Mr. McLaughlin and the officers pursing the stolen vehicle contacted the Registered Owner who gave the police permission to search his vehicle. The stolen vehicle was sealed by uniform officers at the scene of the arrest and towed to Traffic Services at 8 Hanna Ave. Inside the vehicle were stolen items belonging to several victims . The following details this property: a.

Sometime between August 20-24, the victim, Michelle Quenneville, reported her residence was broken into by unknown persons. She advised that several pieces of her property were stolen including 3 USB sticks. Upon completion of a search of the stolen Ford vehicle, officers located the victim’s 3 USB sticks in the vehicle. b. On August 22, 2018, the victim, Amar Noamar-Bashi, reported his vehicle was stolen by unknown persons. The victim advised that several pieces of his property were stolen including a large set of keys and a drill.

Upon completion of search of the stolen vehicle, officers located the set of keys and drill. c. On August 23, 2018, the victim Ursula Redman, reported that her residence was broken into and advised that several pieces of her property were stolen, including personal cheques, a Royal Bank Interac card and a Visa Gold Card. Upon completion of a search of the stolen vehicle, these items were located in the vehicle . d. On August 23, 2018, the victim, Tina Kakish, reported her residence and vehicle were broken into by unknown persons.

She advised that several pieces of her property were stolen including personal papers and a garage door opener. These items were found in the stolen vehicle. Possession of break-in instruments 23. Also located in the Ford Explorer were several break-in instruments including 6multi tools, 3 hammers, small crow bar, pliers, lockpicks, 3 knives and a hacksaw Possession for the purpose of trafficking crystal methamphetamine 24. The car search also revealed 2 separate bags of crystal methamphetamine: i. Bag 1: 4.72 grams ii. Bag 2: 53.35 grams iii.

Total = 58.07 grams (2.04 ounces), Street value of approx. $6000 if sold by the gram. Recovered Property, Other than crystal methamphetamine

25. The following is a list of the electronics that were found in the vehicle that Mr. McLaughlin was operating: a. Grey Apple Wrist watch b. Canon digital camera c. GPS in factory packaging d. Cooler master computer adaptor e. Apple iPhone 4 f. Silver blackberry cell phone g. Wintec Micro SD Card h. Silver tone Apple iPod i. Grey apple iPod j. Samsung cell phone in black case k. Samsung cell phone l. GPS m. BL Bluetooth speaker n. Tom Tom GPS o. Black dell latitude laptop p. Silver tone Acer Aspire laptop q. Black acer aspire laptop r. JBL Portable Bluetooth audio speaker s. Several flash drives t.

Epson Printer 26. The following is a list of the personal documentation belonging to the aforementioned four victims that was found inside the vehicle that Mr. McLaughlin was operating: a. Insurance card b. Ownership c. Ontario Health card d. Bank card e. Photo ID on lanyard 27. The following is a list of tools that were found inside the vehicle that Mr. McLaughlin was operating: a. Dewalt drill with battery b. Dewalt hammer drill with battery c. Dewalt battery charger with two batteries d. Mastercraft circular saw e. Socket set f. Hack saw g. Hammer h. Quantity of hand tools 28.

These are the other items that were found in the vehicle that Mr. McLaughlin was operating: a. Michael Kors purse

b. Bench watch c. Bulova watch d. BD Ultra fine II insulin Syringe (10 pack)