R. v. Beresford, 2023 BCPC 234

Citation: R. v. Beresford 2023 BCPC 234 Date: 20230928 File No: 48942-1 Registry: Penticton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. TIMOTHY MARTIN HERBERT BERESFORD ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE G. KOTURBASH Counsel for the Crown: N. Devji Appearing on his own behalf: T. Beresford Place of Hearing: Penticton , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 27, 2023 Date of Judgment: September 27, 2023

THE COURT: Introduction [ 1 ] Timothy Beresford pled guilty to assaulting Ronald Evans during Mr. Evans' duties as a Walmart greeter in Penticton. Position of the parties [ 2 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of six to nine months in jail, while Timothy Beresford seeks a conditional discharge with conditions that he does not have any contact with the victim, Mr. Evans, or go to the Walmart in Penticton. Circumstances of the offence [ 3 ] On October 16, 2021, at the Walmart in Penticton, Walmart enforced a policy that all customers and employees wear masks inside the store.

The policy was designed to protect and minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus. At the time, Mr. Evans was 70 years old and was on duty as a Walmart greeter. As such, he was required to ensure that people entering the store complied. [ 4 ] Timothy Beresford entered the store on a scooter, not wearing a mask. When Mr. Evans confronted him and told him he would have to leave, Beresford drove his scooter into him multiple times. Beresford then gets off his scooter and punches Mr. Evans. Following the punch, he continues to come at Evans aggressively.

Other store patrons come to Evans' aid and usher Beresford out of the store. However, before leaving the store, Beresford again gets off the scooter and aggressively approaches the Walmart employees but eventually leaves and is arrested by police. [ 5 ] Through his actions and words during the incident and in court, Beresford confirms that he did not and does not believe the mask mandate during COVID-19 was appropriate and it infringed upon his rights. Circumstances of the victim [ 6 ] Mr. Evans was 69, about to turn 70, when the assault occurred.

Evidenced by the video and the circumstances read by the Crown, he is a person of very small stature. Beresford is much younger and substantially bigger. At the time of the incident, Beresford would have been 50 years old. Although he was driving a scooter, there was no indication that he had difficulty getting in and out of it or moving around independently. Nor did he claim during the sentencing hearing that he was currently having any physical ailments. Although Mr. Evans did not provide a victim impact statement, as a result of the assault, he required treatment for a misaligned jaw. Circumstances of Mr.

Beresford [ 7 ] There is little known about Timothy Beresford. During the fitness assessment, he did not consent to retrieving records or providing collateral context. He tells me that he is unemployed and worked at the Foundry in Penticton for a few months. He was raised in Newfoundland and worked for several years in Fort McMurray, where he was employed as a millwright and electrician. [ 8 ] According to the pre-sentence report, Beresford claims no family, including children.

However, in discussions with him here in court today, he does acknowledge that he does indeed have children but does not have any contact with those children. He has five children but is estranged from both his children and his former partner. He was the subject of a peace bond with his family members. He denies consuming alcohol or drugs, says he has never been treated for any mental health condition and takes no medication. [ 9 ] As part of a previous court order, he was referred to Forensic Psychiatric Services for an intake, assessment, and treatment.

Unfortunately, Beresford would not cooperate, and Forensic Services did not get past the intake stage. That attempt was in 2022. At the time, Beresford indicated that he aligned himself with the Freeman on the Land movement. His comments in court are consistent with someone who remains committed to such a movement, a movement that believes the laws of Canada have no application to them.

In other words, they believe they are above the law, a misinformed and misguided belief. [ 10 ] The author of the fitness assessment report opines that Timothy Beresford might suffer from a mood disorder such as hypomania or mania but there was insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion. The writer also said that he may have a personality disorder with antisocial and paranoid traits.

But again, given the lack of participation by Beresford and collateral information, the psychiatrist could not reach any definitive conclusion. [ 11 ] The Crown did suggest that a presentence report and a psychiatric assessment might be appropriate. However, Beresford made it abundantly clear that he would not be a willing participant in such reports, consistent with previous attempts to get him to participate. Forensic Services is experiencing serious staffing shortages. This morning, we dealt with a matter involving a significant delay of a report concerning another individual.

This matter has been outstanding for almost two years. Given Beresford's attitude towards reports, it was decided that any effort would be futile and merely delay things further. [ 12 ] Given the history between him and his family, I should add that if reports had been ordered, I highly doubt that his former partner would have been a willing participant as a collateral informant. [ 13 ] Finally, Beresford has a criminal record. It started in 1990 in Newfoundland for uttering a forged document, for which he received a 30-day sentence. Then, in 1997, he was convicted of assault and received a fine.

In 2007, he was convicted for careless use of a firearm and again received a fine. Finally, on June 13, 2023, he was found guilty of breaching his recognizance and sentenced to 15 days in jail. The objective seriousness of the offence

[ 14 ] Crown proceeded summarily; the maximum sentence is two years in jail and three years’ probation. Primary objectives of sentence [ 15 ] I agree with the Crown that the primary objectives of the sentence here are denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence.

Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic might not be the last, and there might be occasions in the future where we will again be required to don masks, and Beresford and other likeminded individuals need to understand that they do not get to pick and choose the laws that they comply with and that serious consequences can flow when one leaves their lane, flouts the law, and engages in harming others. [ 16 ] I agree with the comments made by my colleague Judge Bazin, who sits on the Provincial Court in Saskatchewan, when the judge describes the important role that frontline workers played during the crisis and the need to ensure that they feel that they are adequately protected, then and potentially in the future.

I will not reread the excerpts of the decision, which were read into the record by the Crown, but they are in R. v. Russell , 2021 SKPC 31 , in paragraphs 3 to 11 and 26 to 30 . [ 17 ] I would also add that, given the prevalence of reports in the media that people are entering stores, stealing from store owners, and often assaulting store owners, there is also a need to recognize that our courts have a duty and role to deter others from engaging in this type of activity. This type of activity Mr. Beresford engaged in is also consistent with that type of activity.

Sentencing range [ 18 ] The only case provided is R. v. Russell , 2021 SKPC 31 . Mr. Russell, in that case, assaulted several frontline workers at a Co-op Home Centre after being asked to wear a mask. The incident occurred when Mr. Russell became enraged and started yelling and screaming at a young woman who asked him to wear a mask. He then punched the store manager, a middle-aged woman, and threatened another employee. After leaving the store, Mr. Russell attacked a sixth employee in the parking lot, punching him multiple times in the face. The employee described Mr.

Russell's behaviour as out of control and feared that he might do something more drastic. The judge emphasized the importance of general deterrence to send a message to those who harass and assault frontline workers enforcing health orders and imposed a sentence of 120 days plus probation. The aggravating and mitigating factors The aggravating factors 1. Beresford has a criminal record. [ 19 ] Although related, it is very dated. He was convicted and sentenced for breaching his recognizance on this matter.

Although that conviction is not to be treated like a prior criminal record, it does speak to Beresford's character and ability to comply with court orders. 2. The vulnerability of the victim. [ 20 ] As mentioned, by his age and size alone, Mr. Evans was a vulnerable victim. But, as the Crown pointed out, given the inherent risks to Mr. Evans in contracting the virus, he was in even more a vulnerable position. 3.

The attacked victim could be likened to a good Samaritan for our community. [ 21 ] As Judge Bazin pointed out in the Russell decision, many of us would not have been able to purchase groceries without frontline workers. Future frontline workers need to know that they have the support of the community and the courts if they get called back to serve our community in a similar situation. [ 22 ] I would add that many of the store owners, in the current climate, also find themselves in a vulnerable position.

Many of the store employees are young people and are being faced with people entering the store, stealing, and being faced with assaultive behaviour. A clear message has to be sent that this type of behaviour is not to be condoned and that people who work in stores need to be adequately protected. 4. The assault resulted in an injury which required treatment. Mitigating circumstances [ 23 ] Beresford pled guilty to the assault, albeit more than 18 months after being charged. He is entitled to some credit for sparing the victim from having to testify and the taxpayers the expense of a trial.

Although remorse is another mitigating factor that flows from that admission of guilt, I am not satisfied, given Beresford's comments in court today, that he has any measure of remorse or empathy for his victim. Sentence [ 24 ] Mr. Beresford seeks a conditional discharge. I am not satisfied that the test for a discharge has been met.

The onus is not on him to meet that test, but there is a test that must be met, and it has not been met. [ 25 ] I have considered all non-carceral forms of punishment, and I am satisfied that none can adequately meet the objectives of sentencing in this case. [ 26 ] I am satisfied that, given the vulnerable nature of the victim and the context in which the assault occurred, including consideration of all of the other objectives, principles of sentence, and the mitigating and aggravating factors, a sentence of six months in jail is appropriate.

[ 27 ] I agree with the Crown that a probation order with any rehabilitative conditions would waste resources. However, an order prohibiting Mr. Beresford from attendance at the store and contact with Mr. Evans is appropriate. [ 28 ] I am placing you on probation, in addition to the six months' jail, sir, and the conditions of the probation order will be as follows. Listen carefully to the conditions. You can ignore the numbers. They are for the benefit of Madam Clerk. The probation order will be for a period of 12 months. [ 29 ] 2001, you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or officer of any change in employment or occupation. [ 30 ] 2002: You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with -- [ 31 ] What is Mr. Evans' first name? [ 32 ] CNSL N.

DEVJI: Ronald. [ 33 ] THE COURT: -- Ronald Evans. [ 34 ] 2005-2, you must not go to the Walmart store in Penticton, British Columbia. [ 35 ] Next are the ancillary orders. [ 36 ] In the circumstances, I will waive the victim surcharge, so you will not be required to pay the $100. [ 37 ] I am satisfied, given the volatility of the situation, with your belief that the laws do not apply to you, that a firearms prohibition is appropriate, so: [ 38 ] Pursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted or prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive substance for three years, and that three years starts upon the release from jail. [ 39 ] With respect to DNA, the assault is a secondary designated offence.

After considering the factors set out in s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code , I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to authorize the taking of a sample of bodily substance from you, which will be taken from you in the institution. [ 40 ] That concludes this matter. (REASONS CONCLUDED)