R. v. Demos, 2019 ONCJ 568

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Demos , 2019 ONCJ 568 DATE: 2019 08 13 COURT FILE No.: Niagara Region 998 18 N1301 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — Trevon Demos and Mary McQuoid Before Justice J. De Filippis Heard on April 15 & June 27, 2019 Reasons for Sentence released on August 13, 2019 Ms. K. Kim............................................................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. J. Root............................................................................................ counsel for Mr. Demos Mr. M.

Evans.................................................................................... counsel for Ms. McQuoid De Filippis, J.: [ 1 ] The defendants pled guilty to robbery. The offence is serious. The offenders are of otherwise good character. This dichotomy informs the very different positons of the Crown and Defence with respect to sentence. [ 2 ] On March 30, 2018 the defendants contacted two women by means of a website that is used to advertise the sale of sex. The website contains personal information [often fictitious] and photographs. Subsequently, the parties communicated by text messages. Ms.

McQuoid asked if the women “do couples” as she wanted to give her boyfriend a “birthday present” and she likes “doing shower stuff with girls”. The women agreed to this request at a cost of $400 (i.e. $200 for each defendant) and disclosed the location of the Niagara Falls hotel room at which these sexual services would be provided. [ 3 ] Text messages between the defendants show that they planned to rob the two women. I reproduce the exchange, with the spelling and other errors: Ms. McQuoid: What are you thinking Mr.

Demos: Once u get the one in the bathroom, ill knock the one & come in the bathroom & knock out the other one….Then we grab the purses & the bag & cut Ms. McQuoid: Okay Mr. Demos: U can put everything in the suit case & ill make aure there down Ms. McQuoid: Okay….Which girl do you want Mr. Demos: The one in the red [ 4 ] The defendants arrived at the hotel room before midnight. There were two beds in the room. Mr. Demos lay on one bed with

one of the victims. Ms. McQuoid lay on the other bed with the second victim. After about 30 minutes, and while the first victim performed fellatio, Mr. Demos repeatedly punched her in the face and head. Almost simultaneously, Ms. McQuoid did the same and also kicked the second victim. As both victims lay on the floor, naked and bleeding, the defendants grabbed their purses, containing $300.00, identification, and credit cards. One of the victims stood up and managed to wrestle her purse from Ms. McQuoid and ran out of the room screaming for help.

The defendants fled the scene. [ 5 ] Both victims were taken to hospital. The woman assaulted by Ms. McQuoid had numerous bruises and a cut to her left cheek that required three stiches to close. This has left a permanent scar. The woman attacked by Mr. Demos suffered bruising as well as internal damage to her nose that will necessitate plastic surgery to repair. [ 6 ] The defendants were captured by a surveillance camera at the hotel on the evening in question and later identified through banking records and social media inquiries. [ 7 ] Neither victim elected to provide a victim impact statement.

However, the one assaulted by Mr. Demos told the author of the presentence report for him that, in addition to a pinched nerve, the scar on her face is a constant reminder of the incident. She added that she “tries to remain positive” but she “has her days and has experienced paranoia since the offence occurred”. [ 8 ] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence is a period of custody for two years less one day, to be followed by probation for two years on certain terms as well as ancillary orders. The Crown position is informed by these considerations: The maximum penalty for robbery is life in jail.

The offence was planned. One victim has a scar on her face and the other needs plastic surgery. The sentence imposed must serve to denounce and deter such conduct. [ 9 ] Both Defence lawyers argue that a fit sentence is 90 days, to be served intermittently. They agree that the probation and ancillary orders requested by the Crown are appropriate. The Defence position is informed by these considerations: The offence is bad. The offenders are not. The defendants have a good past and future.

This incident occurred in a period in which both individuals descended into “a bizzaro world” of drugs, alcohol, and criminal associates. There is no need for specific deterrence. Against this background, the right sentence is 8 to 9 months. However, this should be reduced by 5 months because of restrictive bail conditions. Even if the bail conditions are not factored into the calculation, a 90-day sentence can satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence. [ 10 ] Defence counsel are correct is asserting that their clients have good antecedents and a promising future.

This is supported by the presentence reports, supporting letters, and the defendants’ statements to me. Crown counsel did not dispute the integrity of this material. Neither defendant has been in trouble with the law before this offence. [ 11 ] The presentence report for Ms. McQuoid includes the following information: She is 21 years old, single, with no dependents. The defendant described a good childhood in a close and loving family. She graduated high school with a 93% average and attended university. While in high school, she worked part time. The defendant did not complete her university studies.

During this time – in the year leading up to this offence – she worked as a waitress at a strip club and began performing at the club. She began using marihuana, cocaine and opioids. Ms. McQuoid reported that she has had several bad relationships, including with Mr. Demos. The latter one began well but she soon felt fearful, confused and manipulated by him. This relationship ended when they were arrested for the present offence. She reports she was under the influence of drugs at the time of this offence. She added that she participated in it because she feared Mr. Demos would leave her if she did not. Ms.

McQuoid expressed remorse and feels “terrible that innocent people were hurt”. Since the offence, she has enrolled in a welding course and excels with a 92% average. She also works part time at a local restaurant. Ms. McQuoid struggles with depression and anxiety. She is under counselling that is focused on “healthy relationships”. [ 12 ] I have reviewed 16 letters written in support of Ms. McQuoid. They are from teachers, employers, and co-workers. The defendant is described as an “outstanding student”, highly motivated, and well-liked. [ 13 ] Ms. McQuoid provided a tearful statement to the court.

She told me that she had “made a very bad decision. I’m trying to move forward. Now, I’m so careful about my environment and friends….I was so lost, in a toxic relationship. I don’t want to feel like I did before. I was naïve. I just don’t want to move forward – with counselling, I want to learn more” [ 14 ] The presentence report for Mr. Demos includes the following information: He is 23 years old, single and without children. His father died when he was a child and he was raised in a stable home by his loving mother. He is a strong athlete and worked part time during school.

He is currently employed in sales and well regarded by his supervisor. He met Ms. McQuoid after a failed relationship with another person that had left him “in a bad place”. The relationship with Ms. McQuoid was initially good but “she was living a different lifestyle than he was accustomed to” and they began “spending time with negative associates”. The defendant rarely drinks alcohol but consumes marihuana daily. He does not understand why he committed this offence and that “he feels terrible, it makes him sick to think about it”.

He would like to apologize to his victims. [ 15 ] I have reviewed 8 letters written in support of Mr. Demos. They are from his mother, other relatives, friends, employer, and a teacher. The defendant is described as a good student, industrious, and respectful. [ 16 ] Mr. Demos also provided a statement to the court. In his case, the tears were shed by his mother and sister. He said this: I am sorry. I was wrong. I am embarrassed. I know there will be consequences and my eyes are open. I want to better myself. I wish I could change the past…I was with people and at places I shouldn’t have been.

I will never do this again. [ 17 ] Counsel for Ms. McQuoid submits that this is an exceptional case that justifies a lenient sentence. He points to the guilty plea, remorse, and post-offence rehabilitation in support of his claim that his client’s misconduct is an aberration. He urged me not to crush her hope by undue emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. Counsel suggests that Ms. McQuoid felt pressured to commit the offence by Mr. Demos at a time she was distant from her family had low self-esteem. [ 18 ] Counsel for Mr.

Demos suggested that the relationship between the defendants was a toxic one and both are better off now that it is over. He agreed that the sentence must represent a meaningful consequence without crushing hope for the future. He noted that

before this offence, his client had positive associates, a good family, and a life of promise. He added that both defendants “did a badthing and since the arrest, both are back on the right track”. [19] On behalf of both defendants, Mr. Evans argued that a 90-day intermittent sentence is justified by the restrictive bail conditionsand/or the principle that a period of custody at first instance first should be as short as possible to achieve the sentencing objectives. Thisargument rests on the assertion that there is no need for specific deterrence in this case.

In this regard, counsel asked, “How muchshould general deterrence pull the other way”. [20] The ultimate purpose of all sentences is protection of the public. The most important principle is that of proportionality; asentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness of the offender.

This requires a consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors. [21] In R v Downs, (2006) (ON CA), 205 C.C.C. (3d) 488, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that a person isentitled to a reduction in the otherwise appropriate sentence to account for strict bail conditions that have impacted the offender’s liberty,ability to work and carry on normal relationships. There is no formula. In that case, the court considered that a lengthy period ofpresentence house arrest merited a discount. [22] The defendants have been on bail for almost 15 months on terms that included a curfew of 9 pm to 6 am.

The Defence argues that1/3 of this period should be applied to the sentence I impose. Thus, on the assumption that the appropriate sentence is 8 to 9 months, a 5month reduction would result in a period of custody at, or close to, 90 days. [23] Downs does not assist the defendants in this case. The Court of Appeal for Ontario spoke of restrictive conditions that had asignificant impact on a person’s mobility and/or livelihood. A curfew is not house arrest.

In any event, there is nothing before me,including the presentence reports or the statements of the defendants to the court, to support a claim that they were unable to havereasonably normal lives while on bail. As such, there is no basis to justify a reduction in sentence. [24] In the alternative, it is the Defence position that a 90-day sentence can meet the principle of general deterrence. As a generalproposition, I agree with this assertion.

But, not in the present case. [25] In R v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “street prostitutes, with some exceptions, are a particularlymarginalized population”. The Court of Appeal for Ontario provided guidance about how to respond to attacks on such vulnerablepeople in R v Braithwaite, 2015 ONCA 132. Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of assault and unlawful confinement forhis role in the home invasion and robbery of a prostitute. He was acquitted of robbery, assault with a weapon, and break and enter withintent. He was sentenced to 18 months in custody.

The defendant, along with others, had gone to the hotel room of the victim and boundher with duct tape around wrists, ankles, thighs, neck and head before stealing her money. [26] The appellant argued that a conditional sentence should have been imposed. n dismissing the appeal, the court held as follows; [3] We see no basis on which to interfere with the sentence that was imposed. [4] Even if a conditional sentence were available in this case, the 18-month custodial sentence was fit.

In our view, it reflects the manymitigating factors in this case, all of which the sentencing judge expressly took into consideration. The mitigating factors include thatprior to these offences the appellant had no criminal record, he was a first-time offender with little risk of re-offending who played aminor role in the event, as indicated by his acquittals on the more serious charges, and he testified against his accomplice. [5] To the extent that the appellant relies on the bail conditions, as argued in his factum, we note that they were not particularlyrestrictive and do not warrant enhanced credit. [27] Mr.

Demos and Ms. McQuoid robbed two prostitutes. It was planned and deliberate. I have reviewed the photographs of theattack; they show blood on the pillows and bedsheets as well as the bruised and bloody faces of the victims. The injuries, although notlife threatening, are permanent reminders of the experience. A 90-day intermittent sentence would not be a measured response to thisoffence; it would send the wrong message to the public. Notwithstanding these comments, I do not accept the Crown submission thatBraithwaite requires that I send the defendants to jail for two years less one day.

In making this argument, the Crown suggests that,except for the guilty pleas, the present case is worse than Braithwaite. [28] The personal circumstances of the defendants, as set out above, justify a more lenient disposition than that advocated by theCrown. In this regard, I accept that their relationship was an unhealthy one, but there is no reason to treat them differently. [29] Until this offence, the defendants have had good and productive lives. They can rely on that credit now. Moreover, both havereason to hope for the future. Their remorse is genuine and substantial.

They need not be specifically deterred and rehabilitation is wellin hand. Accordingly, the applicable principles are denunciation and general deterrence. [30] The defendants are each sentenced to 9 months in custody. This will be followed by a period of probation for two years on termsthat include, reporting to a probation officer, counselling as directed and no contact with each other or the victims. The defendants willprovide a sample of the DNA and be bound by a weapons prohibition, pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code, for 10 years. Theywill each pay a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $200.00 within one year. Released: August 13, 2019

Signed: Justice J. De Filippis