R. v. Ainsworth, 2015 ONCJ 99

Information No. 14-10466 Information No. 14-23071 Citation: R. v. Ainsworth , 2015 ONCJ 99 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. STEPHEN DAVID AINSWORTH R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J.F. ADAMSON on January 30, 2015 at OSHAWA, Ontario APPEARANCES : T. Hewitt Counsel for the Crown Stephen Ainsworth Respondent, in person FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 2015 U P O N R E S U M I N G: R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

... ADAMSON, J. (Orally): Mr. Ainsworth is before me for sentence with respect of obstructing police and eight Highway Traffic Act – or seven Highway Traffic Act counts and one count of no insurance. He’s approaching 50 years of age. I’m advised that he has a family, and that he feels that custody would be some hardship to him. I’m not being apprised of any criminal record or Highway Traffic Act record for Mr. Ainsworth. With respect to the Provincial Offences matters, the Crown urges me to impose fines. Mr.

Ainsworth has not made much in the way of submissions to me on the subject, other than to indicate that he does have a family and he would find a financial obligation onerous. I recognize that the fine – the minimum fine that the legislation provides for with respect to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act violation is a serious one, $5000. And I’ll advise you, Mr. Ainsworth, that all of these fines will be accompanied by a surcharge, which I have no control over, it’s approximately 20 percent. So, I think you’re going to see about a $6000 fine for the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act violation.

The reason that the fine is so high is that it’s such a serious thing to do. You seem to believe that the government’s going to pick up the tab for somebody that you accidentally run over and put into a wheelchair for the rest of their life. That is not the case and that is why this behaviour has to be stopped, and that is why the fine is so serious. With respect to that count, I’m going to impose a fine of $5000. With respect to the speeding infraction, I’m going to impose the set fine of $280. With the respect to the fail to identify yourself, a fine of $85.

With respect to the fail to surrender a licence, $85, driver failed to surrender permit, $85, fail to have plates, $85, owner no permit applied for, $85, and fail to have current validated permit, also $85. Are you seeking time to pay those fines, Mr. Ainsworth? STEPHEN AINSWORTH: I would need time to pay those, yes. THE COURT: I’m going to grant you six months to pay. With the respect to the obstruct police, I note that there was a factual dispute with respect to how far and how fast Mr. Ainsworth actually travelled. It should be resolved in the fashion that’s the most favourable to him.

Therefore, I will accept P.C. Ouellette’s evidence with respect to that particular matter, and note that when Mr. Ainsworth restarted the van he only managed to travel approximately 30 metres up the road at between 5 and 7 kilometres per hour before the officers were able to box him in and stop him with their rolling block. However, I also note that it was likely the result of quick thinking by the officers and good luck that there was no other traffic and that three cruisers were able to answer P.C. Ouellette’s earlier call for back up that the situation did not end up significantly worse. Mr.

Ainsworth’s intention was clearly to leave and to travel at whatever speed he felt he wanted to without any regard for any statutes. This conduct is a whisper away from being a flight from police charge. Mr. Ainsworth, there are four principles that I must take into account in passing sentence on you. They are specific and general deterrenence, denunciation, and rehabilitation. Having listened to you today and over the course of your trial, I have come to the conclusion that the only hope for your rehabilitation is to divert you from acting on this philosophy of life that you seem to have adopted.

That philosophy makes you both a nuisance and a danger to your fellow citizens. You show no signs of even wishing to be diverted from that course of your own free will and thus any court effort to dissuade you likely falls more properly under the rubric of specific deterrenence, rather than rehabilitation. Let me be clear, you’re entitled to think what you want, but when you put those thoughts into action and you break laws, you must be stopped. There is a need to stop you and also to denounce your conduct. By your actions of February 2 nd , 2014, you present an active danger to the public.

Had you been charged with flight from police, as you might well have been, several months jail would be in order today. You do not accept that you present such a danger. You maintained this stance throughout your trial, you maintained it today. In your trial you went so far as to state under oath and I quote, “I cannot obey God and the government at the same time, I have chosen to obey God and all other laws have no effect on me. I do not obey them.” And I note the present tense.

In argument you stated and I quote, “I formally and on the record reject all man made laws.” What this case absolutely cries out for is specific deterrence, that is speaking to you directly that you cannot go on in this fashion. You stand - you don’t stand you sit – before me as an unrepentant scofflaw. You argue that the government is a fictitious corporation whose laws are to be flouted. It falls to me to try to impress upon you that the force of the law is not fictitious.

I will also take the opportunity to speak to general deterrence, to speak to your friends or as you referred to them, your colleagues, particularly the gentleman in the front row, from whom you have taken advice throughout this trial. You have so obligingly brought all these people along, so that I can speak to them directly. They need to get the message as well. Mr. Ainsworth and your friends and all other like minded people need to know that the courts will enforce the law.

And you are therefore sentenced as follows, I’m going to note the two days of pretrial custody and I’m going to give you credit at one and a half for one, as is customary, for three days credit. There will be a further 27 days incarceration for a total sentence of 30 days. You’re in custody under sentence, sir. STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I do not consent to your privilege of benefits here. THE COURT: Sadly, Mr. Ainsworth, consent is not required. STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I don’t consent to any privilege of benefits here. R E C E S S

THE COURT: Mr. Ainsworth, I brought you back up for two reasons. One was that something that I forgot to do, which is the Victim Fine Surcharge, that’s in the amount of $100 that is mandatory. I don’t have any discretion over it. So, I’ve got to tell you that that’s being imposed as well. The standard is that you would be given 30 days to pay it. Given your incarceration, I don’t think that’s appropriate, so I’m going to grant you six months in which to pay the $100 dollar surcharge. And as well, I’ve given some thought to Mr. Hewitt’s request for a probation order.

And my initial thought on it had been that I would not want to wish you on a probation officer for supervision, because I don’t think you’re frankly amenable to supervision by a probation officer. You may be - if you carry on as you have been, amenable really only to supervision by the police. But, I am mindful of what Mr. Hewitt argued, which is that it does give some emphasis to the direction of the court and the general direction of our laws that you only operate a motor vehicle when you are properly licensed to do so and the vehicle is properly registered, insured and licenced.

That if you were to – if I make that part of a probation order, if you were to get into the same type of activity again, rather than simply going to Provincial Offences Court, you would be going to Criminal Court and you would be facing a charge of breach of probation. That seems to me in retrospect to be an appropriate way to deal with it. So, I am going to add the probation order as well. I don’t want you reporting on the probation order. I don’t see any reason for you to report.

There are statutory terms that require you to report any change of your name or address, but apart from that you won’t have to see a probation officer. So, the probation order will be for 12 months. STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I don’t accept any of your contracts or offers today. THE COURT: Well, I think you’re learning, Mr. Ainsworth – I hope you’re learning – I hope you give it some thought while you’re in custody that... STEPHEN AINSWORTH: You’re saying no one can follow their God, they must follow you. That is a tremendous breach of religious rights.

And you’re saying that only person – I’ve caused no harm, no damage to anyone. And you’re saying I can’t freely go about this land... THE COURT: You might want to re-read my judgment. We can provide it to you if you want. But you’re going to be bound by a probation order, it’s going to be for 12 months... STEPHEN AINSWORTH: You can be bound by it. THE COURT: You’ll keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so.

You shall notify the court or a probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. And the only other term will be that you will not be in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle, unless both you and the motor vehicle are properly licenced and insured. STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection. I don’t accept any contracts or offers made today. THE COURT: Mr. Ainsworth, if you don’t accept the orders of the court – these are not contracts and they are not offers. If you do...

STEPHEN AINSWORTH: I cannot go against my creator’s will and that – you’re condemning me to hell. I have to follow my creator. By rejecting him and following you - you cannot offer for me to do that. There’s nothing you can do to – I will not to do it. THE COURT: If you don’t obey the law, then you can get used to taking up residence at Central East Correctional Centre. STEPHEN AINSWORTH: That’s what has to be, then that’s what it is. THE COURT: Thank you, officers. That’s the sentence of the court. **********

FORM 2 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUB-SECTION 5(2)) Evidence Act I, Lindsey Butts, C.R., certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. STEPHEN AINSWORTH , in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at OSHAWA, Ontario, on January 30, 2015, taken from Recording No. 2811-404-20150130-091201- 10-ADAMSOJ, which has been certified in Form 1. _____________________________ February 19, 2015 Lindsey Butts, C.R. Transcript Ordered: February 2, 2015 Transcript Completed: February 19, 2015 Ordering Party Notified: February 20, 2015