R. v. Chandler, 2015 ONCJ 230

Information No. 15 – 143 Citation: R. v. Chandler , 2015 ONCJ 230 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. GEOFFREY CHANDLER R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE D.A. HARRIS, on March 20, 2015, at BURLINGTON, Ontario

APPEARANCES S. Bradley Counsel for the Crown B. Neil Counsel for Geoffrey Chandler FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 2015 R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E HARRIS, J. (Orally) : Geoffrey Chandler is before me today with respect to a breach of a conditional sentence order. When I sentenced Mr. Chandler, I indicated at the time that I saw my choices as being between sending him to jail, or imposing a conditional sentence of imprisonment. I was very uncertain as to whether I was making the right decision, but I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and to impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

I suggested at the time that time would tell whether I was making the right decision or making a mistake. I pointed out to Mr. Chandler the importance of complying with the terms and the possible repercussions. As I recall, I even pointed out to him the recommendation by the Supreme Court of Canada that breaches of a conditional sentence be brought back before the sentencing judge, and I pointed out to him that since he resided in the Halton area and I was transferring to the Halton area, it would be rather simple from a procedural standpoint for him to be brought back before me for sentencing.

I also pointed out that the recommendation from the Supreme Court of Canada was that any sentencing Judge look to the possibility of simply converting any remaining time to jail as a consequence if there was, in fact, a breach. The terms that were included in the conditional sentence of imprisonment included the statutory term that required that Mr. Chandler remain within the Province of Ontario unless he had the prior written permission of the supervisor or the Court.

When he first spoke to the supervisor, who did not realize that she was discussing a conditional sentence of imprisonment as opposed to probation, he informed her that he already had a ticket to go to Jamaica. The location of Jamaica is so well known, that I can take judicial notice of the fact that it is outside of the Province of Ontario, and that had he proceeded to go there he would have been in breach. It appeared that the ticket was in his possession prior to the sentencing. He had the ticket before he even knew that he was not going to jail.

He certainly had the ticket at the time that he was told that he had to remain within the Province of Ontario, and nothing was raised at that time: “Can I have an exception with regard to this?” Now, I am cognizant of the fact that the breach has nothing to do with the ticket to Jamaica. In the end, Mr. Chandler did not go to Jamaica. He did not leave the Province of Ontario. He did not breach his order in that particular way. I mention it, however, because it shows quite clearly his attitude with respect to the order. He either was not giving it serious thought, or he was outright prepared to ignore it.

In any event, he was told that he needed to report on a particular day. He did not. The explanations that have been given since are two-fold. They indicate that “I did not say that I was coming that day, I said I would get back to you, and I never did get back to you.” The second explanation is “I was busy, I was stressed, I forgot.” None of those, quite frankly, satisfies the court. The Pre-Sentence Report suggests that non- conformist Mr. Chandler has learned from the whole process. Quite frankly from observing Mr.

Chandler throughout this process and observing it today, yet again questioning, I am not so certain that he has. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the last occasion. I do not intend to do it again. I am not satisfied that simply reinstating the conditional sentence order after it has effectively been extended by 30 days sends the appropriate message to Mr. Chandler. I am definitely not satisfied that it sends the appropriate message to other individuals who might be considering whether it is necessary to observe the terms of a conditional sentence of imprisonment, or not.

The Supreme Court made it clear that a conditional sentence of imprisonment had to be viewed as being a punitive sentence, and one of the reasons why it would be so considered is the high likelihood that jail would be a consequence of a breach. I am

satisfied that jail is necessary to deliver that message to the community, and especially to other individuals who are in the position that Mr. Chandler was, that is individuals who are bound by terms and question whether they have to follow all of them to the letter. The options under the Criminal Code are that where, on a balance of probabilities, the Court is satisfied that an offender has, without reasonable excuse, breached a condition of a conditional sentence order, the Court may:

a) take no action;

b) change the optional conditions;

c) suspend the conditional sentence order and direct that the offender serve in custody a portion of the unexpired sentence and that the conditional sentence order resume on the offender’s release from custody, either with or without changes to the optional conditions, or

d) terminate the conditional sentence and direct that the offender be committed to custody until the expiration of the sentence. In this case, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence or disposition is to suspend the conditional sentence order and direct that Mr. Chandler serve in custody 20 days and that the conditional sentence order resume upon his release from custody without changes to the optional conditions. Thank you, counsel.

Form 2 Certificate of Transcript Evidence Act, Subsection 3(2) I, Patricia Cresswell, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of Her Majesty the Queen v. Geoffrey Chandler , in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 2021 Plains Road, Burlington, Ontario, taken from Recording 1213_13_20150320_092310__6_HARRISDAV.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1. ____ April 24, 2015 ________________________________ (Date) Signature of Authorized Person