R. v. Ricketts, 2018 ONCJ 441

CITATION: R. v. Ricketts , 2018 ONCJ 441 DATE: May 3, 2018 Information No. 4811-998-16-15008636-00 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. PATRICKS RICKETTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEFORE HONOURABLE JUSTICE V. RONDINELLI on May 3, 2018, at TORONTO, Ontario

APPEARANCES : I. Glasner Counsel for the Crown J. Kappy Counsel for Patricks Ricketts ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS Exam. Cr- Re- WITNESSES: In-Ch. Exam. Exam. E X H I B I T S EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE Reasons for Judgment 1 Legend [sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically. Transcript Ordered: June 1, 2018 Transcript Completed: June 26, 2018 Ordering Party Notified: June 26, 2018

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018 MR. GLASNER: And, and I’m also here speaking to the matter of Patricks Ricketts. THE COURT: Yes. MR. GLASNER: Who is waiting judgment. THE COURT: Yes. MR. KAPPY: Good morning sir. THE COURT: Good morning Mr. Kappy MR. KAPPY: Thank you. THE COURT: Is Mr. Ricketts here. MR. KAPPY: Mr. Ricketts is here. Could you come forward please. THE COURT: Can I just see the information. CLERK REGISTRAR: I just need Mr. Ricketts to state his name for the record. MR. KAPPY: Yes, would you stand up and give your name. PATRICKS RICKETTS: Patricks Ricketts. CLERK REGISTRAR: Thank you. THE COURT: All right.

So I’ve heard some reasons that I’ll deliver orally in this matter. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RONDINELLI, J (ORALLY) Mr. Ricketts pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking crack cocaine. The offence related to a sale of 1.44 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover officer for $120. The fundamental principle of sentencing is codified in 718.1 of the Criminal Code . That is, the sentence must proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A sentencing court is also mandated to take into consideration the principles codified in

section 718.2 including that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders. And while sentencing principles have become increasingly codified in recent years, a sentencing court still enjoys a broad discretion in balancing all the relevant factors in order to meet the objectives being pursued in sentencing: See Regina v. Lacasse , 2015, SCC 64 at paragraph 1 .

The Crown submits that the general range of sentence of this type of offence is six months to two years less a day imprisonment: See Regina v. Wilcock 2002, OJ number 4927 CA. However, due to the significant mitigating circumstances found in this case, the Crown takes the position that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Ricketts would be 90 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently plus a period of probation for two years. On the other side, the defence submits that the mitigating factors are significant enough that no imprisonment is required and that sentence should be suspended.

In dealing with the purported sentencing ranges for the offences before the court, I am mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada’s observations in Regina v. Lacasse where Justice Wagner noted at paragraphs 57 to 58: “Where sentencing ranges are concerned, although they are used mainly to ensure the parity of sentences, they reflect all the principles and objectives of sentencing. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives.

However, they should not be considered “averages”, let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case.”

“There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself adesirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot bedisregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purelymathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.

This is why it may happen that asentence that, on its face, falls outside a particular range, and that may never have been imposed in the past for a similar crime, is notdemonstrably unfit. Once again, everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and thespecific circumstances of each case.” There is no doubt that this is a serious offence aggravated by the fact of selling a highly addictive drug to a stranger and that deterrenceand denunciation play essential roles in sentencing. But as the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted in R. v.

Voong 2015 BCCA 285,a non-custodial sentence can still serve these principles. The Court held at paragraph 61: “A suspended sentence can achieve a deterrent effect, as noted above, as well as a denunciatory effect. The fact of being arrested, triedand convicted, can also address these principles. In other words, the stigma of being a convicted drug trafficker and the consequences ofthat conviction for example, restricted ability to travel outside of Canada and exclusion from many forms of employment may also play adeterrent effect”. I would also add that a probation order restricts a person’s liberty and freedom.

In addition to deterrence and denunciation, Mr. Ricketts rehabilitation must be considered. The pre-sentence report goes a long way inexplaining not only who Mr. Ricketts is, but who he could go on to become. Mr. Ricketts is a first-time offender who has faced manyextremely traumatic experiences at various stages of his young life. His childhood included witnessing physical violence in his home andhaving household responsibilities foisted upon him at a young age. His ex-girlfriend miscarried their child which Mr. Ricketts laterfound out was due to her brother beating her while pregnant.

Shortly after that miscarriage, Mr. Ricketts and his ex-girlfriend wereexpecting twins but they both died during labour. Losing one child can be emotionally and psychologically difficult to bear, but havingto do deal with three loses could only further adversely impact Mr. Ricketts’ mental well-being. Unfortunately for Mr. Ricketts, his share of trauma did not end there. In January of 2017, Mr. Ricketts was involved in a fatal motorvehicle accident where he hit a pedestrian on the Gardiner Expressway. While it was confirmed to be a suicide, Mr.

Ricketts continues tocarry guilt and believes that he took someone’s life away. He has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and majordepressive disorder and is taking counselling in that regard. While Mr. Ricketts has had a number of considerable setbacks in his lifethus far, what impressed me the most from a review of the pre-sentence report and listening to his statement to me in open court, is thatMr. Ricketts has used these negative experiences as learning opportunities and is making real efforts to improve his life.

He haseliminated himself from a negative peer group; he is receiving counselling; and has been thriving in his employment with High ParkNissan where his manager has indicated that Mr. Ricketts radiates a lot of energy and uplifts the mood of the dealership and that it isexpected that Mr. Ricketts will be carrying more responsibilities in the near future. Another important indicator of Mr. Ricketts positive rehabilitation is his awareness of the seriousness of his offence. Mr.

Ricketts is notonly worried about how a criminal record impacts him personally, but he readily acknowledges that his behaviour has had a negativeimpact on society. His remorse is genuine and well placed. In my view, to incarcerate Mr. Ricketts, even on an intermittent basis, wouldbe counterproductive since it sacrifices the meaningful gains that have been achieved in terms of his rehabilitation since the date of thisoffence, simply to foster the principles of denunciation and general deterrence by means of incarceration. See Regina v. Ghadban, 2015ONCA 760 at paragraph 24.

In my view, the collateral consequences that a suspended sentence carries, including potential employmentand travel restrictions, as well as prohibition requiring the community service component addresses the necessary principles ofdeterrence and denunciation in the circumstances of this case and this offender. Society would be better served to have Mr. Rickettscontinuing to step forward rather than stumble back into a negative lifestyle. I do note that a suspended sentence was recently imposed ina superior court case, Regina v. Delal, 2018 ONSC 715 , 2018 ON SC 715 in somewhat similar circumstances as this case.

Thatis, a guilty plea to trafficking a small amount of cocaine, no prior criminal record, and good prospects of rehabilitation. As such,sentence will be suspended. Probation will run for two years with the following conditions. One: keep the peace and be of goodbehaviour. Two: appear before the court when required to do so by the court. Three: notify your probation officer in advance of anychange of name, address, employment or occupation. Four: report to probation today and thereafter as required.

Five: attend andactively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to thesatisfaction of the probation officer. Six: sign any release of information forms that will enable your probation officer to monitor yourattendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed. Seven: not to purchase, possess orconsume any drug as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which you do not have a prescription. Eight: not to possessweapons as defined in the Criminal Code.

Nine: make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain suitable employment. And ten: perform100 hours of community service work as approved by your probation officer. You must complete all of your community service hourswithin the next 12 months and provide proof of completion of said community service to your probation officer. There will also be asection 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years and the mandatory victim fine surcharge on the single indictable offence which I guess is$200. How much time will Mr. Ricketts need for that? ...END OF EXCERPT AS REQUESTED