Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-10000631-0000 DATE: 20201218 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – RICHARD ISAAC Accused

Counsel: Robert Wright and Tania Monteiro, for the Crown Daniel Brodsky and Taro Inoue, for the Accused

HEARD: December 8, 2020

REASONS FOR SENTENCE B.P.O’MARRA J.

Overview

[1] On October 30, 2020 Richard Isaac was found guilty of the second degree murder of twenty-eight year old Victoria Selby-Readman. Richard Isaac was arrested on June 16, 2018 and has been in custody since that date. The following provisions of the Criminal Code are relevant on this sentencing:

Punishment for murder

235 (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment.

Sentence of life imprisonment

745 Subject to section 745.1, the sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be;

(c) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served at least ten years of the sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to section 745.4.

Recommendation by jury

745.2 Subject to section 745.3, where a jury finds an accused guilty of second degree murder, the judge presiding at the trial shall, before discharging the jury, put to them the following question:

You have found the accused guilty of second degree murder and the law requires that I now pronounce a sentence of imprisonment for life against the accused. Do you wish to make any recommendation with respect to the number of years that the accused must serve before the accused is eligible for release on parole? You are not required to make any recommendation but if you do, your recommendation will be considered by me when I am determining whether I should substitute for the ten year period, which the law would otherwise require the accused to serve before the accused is eligible to be considered for release on parole, a number of years that is more than ten but not more than twenty-five.

Ineligibility for parole

745.4 Subject to section 745.5, at the time of the sentencing under section 745 of an offender who is convicted of second degree murder, the judge who presided at the trial of the offender or, if that judge is unable to do so, any judge of the same court may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and to the recommendation, if any, made pursuant to section 745.2, by order, substitute for ten years a number of years of imprisonment (being more than ten but not more than twenty-five) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances.

The Nature of the Offence and the Circumstances Surrounding its Commission

[2] In May and June 2018 Victoria Selby-Readman lived in an apartment on Richmond Street in Toronto. She had a very good relationship with her father Gary Readman that had relevance to the events surrounding her death. He had lived with her in that apartment for a period of time until he moved out in January 2018. They maintained regular, if not daily, contact by text messages and phone calls.

[3] In May 2018 Victoria was looking for someone to share the cost of her rent. In mid-May 2018 Richard Isaac moved into the apartment with her. They were not at any time in a romantic relationship.

[4] On June 8 and 9, 2018 there were two text message exchanges between Gary Readman and the phone associated to his daughter. He testified as to the texts that he sent. Screenshots of the texts were filed as exhibits. The text exchange of June 8 starts at 5:06 p.m. and included the following references to Richard Isaac and how things were going:

“ My roommate is drunk again…I need support…He’s so stupid I want him gone today”

[5] On June 9 at 4:03 p.m. Gary Readman followed up with his daughter by text and asked how she was. The replies presented a far more sympathetic view of Richard Isaac. The verbatim responses from her cell phone included the following:

“ Good actually. He’s taking me out for supper. I asked him not to drink anymore and he agreed with me….He’s a nice guy. I just hate seeing him drink over his ex. She’s not worth it and he’s only hurting himself. When he’s sober he’s so kind and thoughtful. This week he brought me flowers…OK gonna get ready to go out for supper.”

[6] On June 11 and 12, 2018 Gary Readman sent text messages to his daughter but received no response. This was unusual. On June 12, 2018 he decided to go to her apartment to see how she was doing. Custodial staff helped him enter her apartment. Once inside he made the horrific discovery of her badly beaten and decomposing body. She was wrapped in blankets and propped against a wall. The condition of her body was such that her father did not initially recognize her and it took some time before he realized it was her. He immediately called the police.

[7] Victoria Selby-Readman was last seen alive by anyone other than her killer on a security video at her apartment building at 5:55 p.m. on Friday June 8, 2018.

[8] Richard Isaac’s father testified that his son called him early on Monday June 11, 2018. Richard Isaac told him he could no longer live at the apartment on Richmond Street and asked his father to pick him up. The security video at the apartment building showed the accused later that morning carrying three apparently full garbage bags as he hurried out of the building. His father had pulled up nearby in a vehicle and then drove the two of them to Fenlon Falls where the accused would stay in a trailer owned by his father. That is where he was arrested on June 16, 2018.

[9] Richard Isaac did not testify at trial. However, he left two pages of handwritten notes in a journal that was left in plain sight when the police arrived at the trailer in Fenelon Falls on June 16, 2018. The notes are a denial of any involvement in the death of Victoria Selby-Readman. In notes that he said he wrote on June 12, he said he left the apartment on June 9 to buy some alcohol. When he returned he found the battered and lifeless body of the victim. He claimed he threw up and made sure the door was locked. He said her pants were down and he pulled them back up. He then covered her with blankets and a towel. On his account he remained in the apartment with the body of the victim for the rest of June 9 and then throughout June 10 until the morning of June 11 when he arranged to be picked up by his father. Security video at the apartment building on June 10 showed that he briefly left to purchase more alcohol before returning.

[10] By their verdict, the jury rejected the handwritten denial by Richard Isaac and were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that they did accept that he was in fact guilty.

[11] The indictment alleged that the victim was killed in the time period of June 8-10, 2018 inclusive. She was last seen alive on a security video at the apartment building in the early evening of June 8, 2018. For reasons that I outlined in a ruling reported at 2020 ONSC 7190, the jury were instructed that there was circumstantial evidence from which they could make the following findings: that the victim was killed on June 8, 2018 and that the text messages dated June 9 to her father on her phone were in fact sent by Richard Isaac. The circumstantial evidence on those issues included the fact that her phone found by police in her apartment did not require a password to be activated and used. There were also no fingerprints found anywhere on her phone.

[12] Richard Isaac and the victim are both clearly visible in various security videos at the apartment building. Richard Isaac is significantly taller and heavier than the victim.

[13] The fatal injuries to the victim were to her head, face and neck area. They included displaced fractures of her jaw and bones in her head and neck area. Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Pickup referred to blunt force impact causing head and neck trauma. There were significant amounts of blood under and near the badly decomposed body of the victim. In view of the distribution and severity of the fatal injuries Dr. Pickup indicated a stomping mechanism likely caused them. The victim was in effect stomped to death.

[14] After his arrest various parts of Richard Isaac’s body were photographed by police. One of those photos showed a significant linear scratch on the outer portion of his right arm. DNA was retrieved from under one of the victim’s left finger nails. Richard Isaac could not be eliminated as the source of that DNA.

Character of Richard Isaac

[15] Experienced counsel for the accused did not request a Presentence Report. Some biographical information about the accused was provided through the trial testimony of his father. Counsel supplemented that in submissions on sentence. Richard Isaac is forty-four years old. He has worked sporadically in construction. Substance abuse related to alcohol and extreme anger issues form a pattern in his behaviour. A tumultuous marriage punctuated by violent incidents against his former wife and son ended after seven years. A son and daughter of that marriage were born in 1999 and 2003 respectively. He was involved in two other intimate relationships with women that also involved violent abusive behaviour by him toward them. Richard Isaac’s mother passed away in 2017. His father has dealt with serious health issues. Counsel advised that there are few educational courses available to inmates at the detention center. His client would be willing to enroll in courses offered in the penitentiary system.

[16] Richard Isaac has a criminal record starting as a youth in 1991. There are numerous convictions that are particularly relevant to this case involving violence toward women and breaches of court orders. Counsel for the accused points out that the longest jail term he has received so far is two months. The particulars of the record are as follows:

1991-12-10 BRAMPTON ONT (YOUTH COURT) MISCHIEF OVER $1000 SEC 430(3)(A) CC (PEEL REG PF54931-91) PROBATION 12 MOS & RESTITUTION & 30 HRS COMM SERV WORK

1992-09-10 BRAMPTON ONT (YOUTH COURT) (1) MISCHIEF UNDER $1000 SEC 430(4) CC (2) THEFT UNDER $1000 SEC 334(B) CC (3) FAIL TO COMPLY WITH DISPOSITION SEC 26 YO ACT (PEEL REG PF OCC 194956-91) (1) 7 DAYS OPEN CUSTODY & PROBATION 18 MOS (2) 7 DAYS OPEN CUSTODY CONSEC& PROBATION 18 MOS (3) 30 DAYS OPEN CUSTODY CONSEC & PROBATION 18 MOS CONC

1995-01-19 BRAMPTON ONT (YOUTH COURT) (1) FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT SEC 279(2) CC (2) SEXUAL ASSAULT SEC 271 CC (PEEL REG PF OCC 137209-94) (1) TIME SERVED (2 MOS) & PROBATION 2 YRS (2) PROBATION 2 YRS CONC

1996-05-27 BRAMPTON ONT (1) CRIMINAL HARASSMENT SEC 264(2) CC (2) ASSAULT A PEACE OFFICER SEC 270(1)(A) CC (PEEL REG PF OCC 144940-95) (1) 30 DAYS & PROBATION 2 YRS (2) 30 DAYS CONSEC

1998-09-14 BRAMPTON ONT ASSAULT CBH SEC 267(B) CC (PEEL REG PF OCC 024055-98) 30 DAYS & PROBATION 1 YR

1999-12-02 BRAMPTON ONT ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (PEEL REG PF OCC 070808-99) 60 DAYS INTERMITTENT & PROBATION 12 MOS

2002-05-06 BRAMPTON ONT ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (PEEL REG PS OCC 116425-01) 30 DAYS INTERMITTENT & PROBATION 12 MOS

2004-09-27 BRAMPTON ONT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PROBATION ORDER SEC 733.1 CC (PEEL REG PS OCC 174508-03) SUSP SENT & PROBATION 12 MOS

2006-07-31 BRAMPTON ONT ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (PEEL REG PS OCC 167424-04) 90 DAYS INTERMITTENT & PROBATION 24 MOS & DISCRETIONARY PROHIBITION ORDER SEC 110 CC

2008-01-24 ORANGEVILLE ONT (1) ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (2) FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PROBATION ORDER SEC 733.1(1) CC (DUFFERIN OPP OP07341404) (1) 6 MOS & PROBATION 3 YRS & DISCRETIONARY PROHIBITION ORDER (2) PROBATION 3 YRS CONC

2014-10-30 ORANGEVILLE ON (1) ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (2) UTTERING THREATS SEC 264.1(1)(A) CC ( DCN11825706307101013109) (ORANGEVILLE PS OV14006143) (1) 60 DAYS ON EACH CHG CONC & PROBATION 3 YRS (CREDIT FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF 248 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY) & DISCRETIONARY WEAPONS PROHIBITION SEC 110 CC FOR 10 YRS (2) 60 DAYS ON EACH CHG CONC & PROBATION 3 YRS

2018-03-09 TORONTO ON DISOBEYING ORDER OF COURT SEC 127(1) CC (DCN11732106350018899103) (TORONTO PS 0000043168) 1 DAY (CREDIT FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF 15 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY)

2018-03-20 TORONTO ON (1) ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (2) MISCHIEF UNDER $5000 SEC 430(4) CC (3) FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PROBATION ORDER SEC 733.1(1) CC (DCN11709906350013169106) (TORONTO PS 0000043168) (1) SUSPENDED SENTENCE & PROBATION 24 MOS (CREDIT FOR THE EQUIVELANT OF 90 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY) & DISCRETIONARY WEAPONS P ROHIBITION SEC 10 CC FOR 10 YRS (2-3) SUSPENDED SENTENCE & PROBATION 24 MOS

2019-03-18 OSHAWA ON (1) CRIMINAL HARASSMENT SEC 264(1) CC (2) MISCHIEF UNDER $5000 SEC 430(4) CC (3) FAIL TO COMPLY WITH PROBATION ORDER SEC 733.1(1) CC (DCN11813506305124206101) (DURHAM REGIONAL PS - 01 2018 97239) (1) SUSPENDED SENTENCE & PROBATION 2 YRS (CREDIT FOR THE EQUIVALENT OF 135 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY) & MANDATORY WEAPONS PROHIBITION SEC 109 CC (2-3) SUSPENDED SENTENCE & PROBATION 2 YRS (CREDIT FOR THE EQUIVALANT OF 135 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY)

[17] The criminal antecedents include eight incidents of violence and threats against three intimate partners including his long suffering ex-wife. One of those incidents included a graphic and explicit threat to kill his teenage son that was uttered by him directly to his son. Two of the incidents included Richard Isaac kicking the victims after they had been forced to the floor. They are disturbing precursors of how Victoria Selby-Readman was killed. The criminal record includes numerous convictions for breaches of court orders related to domestic violence incidents. During the time preceding and at the time of this murder there was a warrant for his arrest related to a domestic violence incident in Durham Region.

The Jury Recommendation

[18] Nine jurors recommended the maximum of twenty-five years of parole ineligibility. That reflects their assessment of the brutal nature of this crime and the callous conduct of the accused afterward. Three jurors made no recommendation.

Victim Impact

[19] The court heard and received thirteen victim impact statements. They were from the parents, cousins, uncles, aunts and friends of Victoria. They were heartfelt and powerful. Understandably they included vivid expressions of anger towards the accused. They are entitled to those feelings based on the terrible loss they have all suffered and the dreadful circumstances of Victoria’s death. As a judge I am restricted by the provisions of s. 722 of the Criminal Code to consider the physical and/or emotional impact of this crime on the victims. I will abide by that restriction. The impacts have been and will continue to be profound on all of them. Nothing this court says or does can possibly heal those wounds. By all accounts Victoria was a very good person who had a positive influence on those who knew her. It is difficult to compare the impact of her loss on all the victims. This is especially so in regards to her father. The appalling scene that he came upon in her apartment on June 12 must have been one of stark horror. It was an image that nobody should have to see, especially for a parent.

The Position of Counsel

[20] The Crown seeks a term of eighteen years for parole ineligibility. The defence submits that the term should be twelve years.

Legal Framework

[21] In R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227 at paras. 18 and 21 the court held that on such applications while the assessment of future dangerousness and denunciation are relevant considerations deterrence is also relevant. The determination is very fact-sensitive.

[22] Parole ineligibility for second degree murder is part of sentencing. Objectives such as deterrence, denunciation, proportionality and aggravating and mitigating factors are proper considerations. R. v. Boukhalfa, 2017 ONCA 660 at para. 215. See also R. v. Keene, 2020 ONCA 635.

[23] In R. v. Jarvis, 2017 ONSC 6405, Regional Senior Justice Fuerst dealt with a case that had similar features to the matter before me. The accused in that case pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was forty-eight years old and the woman he killed was sixty-two years old. They were not intimate partners. She was much smaller in stature and slight of build compared to the accused. He was an unemployed drug addict who she befriended. Over time she had lent him money that was not repaid. On the fateful day she apparently asked him yet again for payment of his debt. They were in her home. He grabbed her by the neck and choked her. He then slashed her throat with a knife. He then removed her jewelry and rings from her body, locked the door after leaving and drove away in her car. He pawned her jewelry. He misled the police about her whereabouts when they began looking for her. The victim’s body was eventually discovered when the police entered her home. The accused was then arrested and charged. He pled guilty and expressed remorse. There was a joint submission of 17-20 years for parole eligibility. The court referred to the particular brutality of the killing and that it happened in her home, “the one place where she was entitled to be safe from harm.” The court also found that the accused had breached her trust after she had invited him into her home. The victim was very vulnerable based on the size and strength discrepancy. The conduct of the accused after-the-fact was cold and callous. He lied to the police to avoid detection and prevent the finding of her body. The victim impact was profound on family and friends. Parole eligibility was set at eighteen years.

Analysis

[24] Violence or abuse directed at an intimate partner has been specifically codified as an aggravating factor on sentence by s. 718.2 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. While there was not an intimate relationship here the accused and the victim were involved in a personal relationship by virtue of sharing a small apartment. The victim was very vulnerable to be in such a confined space with a man much bigger and stronger than her. He has a proven history of violence against other women with whom he shared space. There was no escape from his wrath and she could not defend herself. As in the case of Jarvis she was brutally attacked and killed in her own residence where she had a right and reasonable expectation that she would be safe from harm.

[25] The conduct of the accused after-the-fact was cold and callous. I am satisfied based on the constellation of circumstantial evidence that the victim was killed on June 8. She was dead on June 9 as the accused sent text messages on her phone in reply to her father. That was a cruel gambit to deflect any attention from what he had done to the victim. It was an attempt to lead her father to believe that all was well and she was about to enjoy a friendly meal with the accused. Remaining in the apartment with her dead and battered body for over forty-eight hours and then leaving her without notifying any authorities was callous.

[26] Mr. Brodsky did his best in submissions on sentence but was hard pressed to put forward any mitigating factors. Richard Isaac is not young, not a first offender, not a first time violent offender against a woman in a confined space where he had an overwhelming physical advantage and power to dominate and inflict extreme harm.

[27] The accused did not testify at trial. He had no obligation to do so. When counsel had finished their submissions on sentence I asked him whether he wished to say anything. He then expressed some sympathy for the victim’s family and friends but also claimed that he is innocent of her death. He did not express remorse for this crime. He is entitled to assert and maintain his innocence. Absence of remorse is not an aggravating factor. It is the absence of what would otherwise be a mitigating factor. R. v. Roks, 2011 ONCA 526 at para. 166. The accused also expressed doubt about whether the victim was in fact very vulnerable. I do not agree with or accept his comment on that issue for the reasons I have set out in these reasons.

[28] Victoria Selby-Readman was a very vulnerable victim who did nothing to deserve the cruel death she suffered. The extreme level of violence by the accused towards this young woman and his callous conduct after-the-fact must be denounced by this court. This type of case and this particular accused demand a significant degree of general and specific deterrence. By his criminal history and his conduct in this case, he presents a clear and continuing extreme danger to a particular class of potential victims. Any woman involved in a relationship with him, including a relationship short of intimacy, is in grave danger if she is in a confined space with him alone. For all of these reasons parole ineligibility must be set towards the top end of the range permitted by the Criminal Code.

Result

[29] Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code there will be an order for a DNA sample. Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code there will be a lifetime weapons prohibition order. Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code there will be an order that the accused during the custodial part of his sentence not contact, directly or indirectly, by any means any member of the extended family of Victoria Selby-Readman. There will also be an order that he not contact Justin Silva or Omar Ben Mekki, directly or indirectly, by any means except through legal counsel.

[30] The sentence is life imprisonment. Parole ineligibility is set at eighteen years to run from June 16, 2018.

O’Marra J.

B.P.O’MARRA J. Released: December 18, 2020