R. v. Charles, 2011 ONCJ 3

Citation: R. v. Charles , 2011 ONCJ 3 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — TERON CHARLES Before Justice H. Borenstein Sentencing Submissions heard on January 6, 2011 Reasons for Sentence released on January 6, 2011 Mr. T. Pittman ........................................................................................................ for the Crown Ms. U. Kancharla ......................................................................... for the accused Teron Charles BORENSTEIN J.: [ 1 ] This is the sentencing of Teron Charles who was found guilty after trial of sexual assault.

The related count of sexual interference was conditionally stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple . Mr. Charles was 26 years old at the time of the offence. He had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. The 14 year old girl initiated the sexual relationship. Consent is not a defence in the circumstances. My reasons for judgment were released on November 19, 2010 and I will not repeat the facts here. [ 2 ] No victim impact statement was presented to the Court. A pre-sentence report was prepared. [ 3 ] Mr. Charles is now 28 years old. He is a first offender. He was born in Grenada.

His mother raised him as a single mother. He has no relationship with his father. His mother moved to Canada when he was very young and Mr. Charles was then cared for by his grandmother’s sister. Mr. Charles was in a very serious car accident in Grenada where he lost his hearing in his right ear and has only partial hearing in his left ear. Mr. Charles then came to Canada at the age of 12 to join his mother. They lived together in Scarborough. [ 4 ] Mr. Charles believes his father had a son from another relationship. That would be his step brother. Mr.

Charles believes that person lives in Toronto but they have no contact. [ 5 ] Mr. Charles went to a high school for the deaf and hearing impaired and graduated. He took a few courses at a community college thereafter. As I indicated in the trial, Mr. Charles has learned to adapt very well. Most people do not realize he has a hearing impairment. He can hear somewhat and he lip reads. [ 6 ] He has worked at various jobs. He worked at Burger King for four years as well as in a factory. He would like to apprentice as a plumber and then enrol in a plumber’s course at a community college. That is his plan.

He also receives financial assistance from the Ontario government. [ 7 ] Mr. Charles’ relationship’ with women have been discussed in the pre-sentence report and are relevant given that he chose to have a relationship with a girl he suspected was a minor and continued nonetheless. [ 8 ] Mr. Charles clearly wants to be involved in a stable, steady relationship with a partner. He lived with his mother until he was 19 but then moved out to move in with a woman. That lasted three years.

When that relationship ended, he moved back in with his mother. [ 9 ] He then had the relationship with the 14 year old complainant in this matter. Once he was charged with this offence, he moved to Brantford in October 2009 when he met a woman in Brantford. That relationship lasted two months [ 10 ] In December 2010, Mr. Charles told the author of the pre-sentence report that he met another woman in Brantford about a year earlier, that would be approximately December 2009 – or just a month of so after his last relationship ended. He told the author that he married this woman in June 2010.

She had five children of her own although two were apprehended by CAS. He told the author that was like a father to her children. At the second meeting with the author of the pre-sentence report one week later, Mr. Charles indicated that his new relationship ended and his wife and children had moved out and he did not know her whereabouts. At today’s hearing, I have been told that that relationship has resumed. [ 11 ] The Crown seeks a conditional sentence and probation as well as a DNA order. The Crown is not seeking an Order that Mr. Charles be registered on the Sex Offender Registry.

The defence seeks a suspended sentence.

[ 12 ] It is clear to me that Mr. Charles very much wants to be in a stable relationship. There is nothing unusual about that and perhaps even more so for Mr. Charles given his early life experience in Grenada. No doubt that desire led him to ignore the fact that the complaint was obviously very young, 14 in fact, and he continued nonetheless without learning her age. [ 13 ] His IQ has been mentioned throughout the trial. He has a low IQ although that is not particularly apparent to those who deal with him,.

I certainly did not notice him having any difficulty understanding the proceedings or communicating. [ 14 ] The aggravating features in this case are the fact that a 26 year old chose to engage in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old. He knew she was young. He did not know for certain how young she was but he proceeded nonetheless. Given the vulnerabilities of young people, even those who initiate sexual relationships with older men, Parliament has imposed a requirement that the adult take responsibility to ensure their sexual partners are 16 years old or older. Mr.

Charles chose not to do that and to proceed nonetheless. That conduct needs to be denounced and deterred. [ 15 ] On the other hand, Mr. Charles is himself someone who has some vulnerabilities. He has not had any of the advantages of a stable upbringing. His mother left him when he was very young. He does not know his father. He lost his hearing. He then came to Canada at 12 and persevered despite his hearing impairment to graduate high school and he continually tries to remain working. [ 16 ] This is indeed a sad case for all involved. [ 17 ] Mr.

Charles has been found guilty of a crime that contains a considerable level of stigmatization. I do not see the need nor the benefit to the community of incarcerating Mr. Charles, a first offender. Incarceration would send a message to others who would engage in similar behaviour and that is a factor to consider. However, given the fact that he has never before offended, given his vulnerabilities both in terms of IQ and hearing impairment, in my view incarceration would be harsh.

A criminal record and probationary terms would be a sufficient sentence to address the principles of sentencing. [ 18 ] Given the unique circumstances in which this case occurred, the Crown, very fairly as it has been throughout, is not seeking to have Mr. Charles registered on the Sex Offender Registry. Even without registration on the Sex Offender Registry, this offence carries a considerable amount of stigmatization.

That, together with the 14 days of pre-trial custody, provide enough deterrence and denunciation to satisfy those principles of sentencing. [ 19 ] Accordingly, I will suspend the passing of sentence and place Mr. Charles on probation for two years on the following terms: He is subject to the mandatory terms of probation. In addition to the mandatory terms of probation, he will take and actively participate in any assessment and counselling that his probation officer recommends and will sign all releases to enable his probation officer to monitor his compliance.

He will have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly with the victim in this matter. He will not be in the company of anyone under the age of 15 unless they are members of his own family or if he is in the presence of another adult aged 18 or more. Finally, he will provide a sample of his DNA to the authorities. Given the finding of guilt, his privacy rights are outweighed by the benefits to society of having his DNA . Released: January 6, 2011 Signed: “Justice H. Borenstein”