Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Regional Municipality of Durham: 998 11 21423 Date: 2013-08-22 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — George Corrie West
Before: Justice J. De Filippis
Heard: August 14, 2013
Reasons for Sentence Released: August 22, 2013
Counsel:
- Mr. T. Boodoosingh for the Crown
- Mr. B. Scott for the Defendant
Reasons for Sentence
De Filippis J.:
[1] The defendant is married to Erin West and they have two young children together; D. and R., as well as A., a five year old, who is the daughter of Ms West by a previous relationship. Ms West now refers to herself by her maiden name; Ms Wolsey. On 9 May 2011, Ms Wolsey told the police the defendant had assaulted her and their infant. While being interviewed about this, she disclosed prior incidents of abuse against her. Consequently the defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon (hot water), four counts of assault and two counts of threatening. After a four day trial, I found the defendant guilty of all charges except one count of assault and one count of threatening; see R v West 2013 ONCJ 315.
[2] The Crown suggested a nine month prison term, followed by probation. Defence counsel submitted that if custody is warranted, it should be in the intermittent range (up to 90 days). I expressed concern that these submissions failed to reflect the gravity of the offences and offender and stood the matter down so that counsel could respond. Upon resuming, the Crown stated that on review of the case law, he sought to alter his position to one of 15 months custody. Defence counsel had nothing further to add. These reasons explain why I sentence the defendant to 18 months in jail followed by probation for three years, and also impose ancillary orders.
Facts
[3] Ms Wolsey testified as follows: In the months leading up to the May 9th incident the defendant was "a bully and verbally abusive". On the day in question, the victim's mother dropped by to invite her and the children to dinner. The defendant said that they could not go as he did not know where the keys to the motor vehicle were located. After her mother left, A. asked for the keys and the defendant shouted, "If anybody else asks where the fucking keys are, I'll smash them". The victim explained that "there is nothing you can do when he gets like that" and proceeded to heat up a bottle for the infant. This made things worse because the defendant had already done so and became angry at the waste of baby formula. He "squirted" some formula at his wife. The latter thought, "okay, he's calming down and playing" and squirted back at him from her bottle. The defendant picked up the cup of boiling water that had been used to heat the baby bottle and in three successive movements shook the cup and splashed water on her each time. The hot water hit her left forearm and chest. She said her arm was red and raw but not blistered. She was holding R. at the time and the water also hit him on the chest. She quickly pulled at the infant's shirt to prevent a burn. She shouted "stop, the baby" but the defendant "just stared and continued to empty the cup". After this, the defendant unscrewed the baby bottle and poured the contents down the back of his wife's head. Within minutes the victim's mother and sister, Amber, returned with ice cream for the children. The victim stated that when the defendant saw them, he "whistled as if all was calm and happy…that's what he does after". Ms Wolsey quietly told her mother what had happened and the latter told her to get out of the house. She did not do so because she feared her mother would be hurt for interfering. In this regard, the victim explained that the defendant once told her that when his former mother-in-law intervened in a dispute with his son (by a previous marriage), he had choked the woman. After Ms Wolsey's mother left, the defendant went to have a shower. The victim used this opportunity to leave with her children. She pushed one in a stroller and pulled the other in a wagon, while A. walked with her along the road. Once outside, she called her mother and was picked up by her in a motor vehicle. The police were then called. On arrival, the police found the victim to be crying, upset and shaking.
[4] In my reasons for judgement, I explained why I accepted the victim's version of events as set out above. I also concluded the following four incidents had occurred:
One or two weeks before the incident on May 9th, during an argument, the victim told the defendant she would leave him and he threatened to kill her if she took the children.
In April 2011, while in bed, the defendant repeatedly touched the complainant's shoulder and face. Annoyed by this, she pushed his hand away and was immediately punched in the head by the defendant, who said, "Don't fucking touch me".
On 10 February 2011, the victim visited a relative in hospital. Before leaving home, at about 7:30 AM, she argued with the defendant and after "talking back" he administered a "back handed slap" to her mouth, causing her to bleed from an inside cut.
On 30 December 2010, the family prepared for a visit to the victim's father for a "late Christmas". After "loading the kids in the van", the victim went inside the house and was told the defendant would not go on the trip unless she "sucked his dick". He "pulled out his erect penis" and after she "slapped it away", the defendant kicked and punched her and banged her head on the wall. Then he "suddenly stopped". The victim composed herself and joined him in the van for the drive to her father's home. While driving there, the defendant laughed about the incident and said she had "squealed like a bitch".
Arrest and Subsequent Conduct
[5] The circumstances of the defendant's arrest and his subsequent conduct are also relevant to sentence. Cst. Prins and other officers went to arrest the defendant at his home at 7:31 PM on May 9th. The officer's knock on the door was not answered but he "heard shuffling inside". He telephoned the defendant and also shouted for him at the window. There was no response. The premise was secured by police and one hour later the canine unit arrived. There were four marked police cruisers on scene with spot lights pointed at the residence. At 9:52 PM, Cst. Prins saw the defendant inside the house close a window and shut the blind. At 10:23 PM, the defendant walked out the front door and was apprehended. Before leaving the house he had packed A.'s school bag and placed a letter inside it. The letter, addressed to the victim and the Durham Regional Police, included these statements; "I know you are a fantastic mom…..I really, really, really miss you guys right now and always. I love this life and I am never ever going to be angry or spiteful towards you. Ever Erin West. I apologize if I miss packed these bags. I am sure you can understand being surrounded after I awoke. I am peaceful and will back you on whatever choice you go with….". On 22 July 2011, more than two months after the defendant's arrest, the victim found a message on her Facebook account in which she declared the defendant to be her "significant other" and that her interests are "Being with my family, snuggling with my husband to a good movie, chocolate, enjoying life".
[6] In my reasons for judgement I explained why these circumstances show the defendant to be a calculating and controlling man: He was aware the police were outside his home but surrendered hours later, on his terms, after leaving a self-serving letter. I also found that the defendant had obtained unauthorized access to the victim's Facebook account and posted another self-serving message.
Victim Impact
[7] A Victim Impact Statement was filed with the court. In it, the victim reported a "lifestyle of abuse and control". She lives in fear of the defendant and has frequent nightmares in which he kills her or the children. She has relocated without telling most of her family and friends of her new address to avoid that information becoming known to the defendant. In conclusion, she states that:
One positive that came from all of this, is my children have been able to move forward from all of that and are now living happy healthy lives in a safe environment. They are no longer hurt, bullied, and scared. I don't ever want my children subjected to that kind of lifestyle again.
Offender Background
[8] The defendant is 32 years old. At one time he was a gifted hockey player with great potential. Any hope of a career in sports came to an end in 2001 when he was severely beaten and put on life support because of a head injury. Afterwards, between 2004 and 2009, he was convicted of 13 offences, mostly for assault, and including failure to comply with court orders.
[9] Defence counsel submitted a psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Gulati in 2010 with respect to family court proceedings. The report notes that after being beaten the defendant experienced "adjustment difficulties, including anxiety, depression, chronic pain syndrome and addiction to pain medication". In 2002, another psychiatrist concluded that the defendant's "documented history of behavioural and emotional dysregulation was also consistent with effects the brain injury (sic), likely exacerbated by pre-existing behaviour tendencies and personality factors". Eight years later, Dr. Gulati was of the opinion that:
He has shown gradual improvement and he is capable of taking care of himself. His insight and judgment is fair. He is not a risk to himself or anybody whom he takes care as his memory is intact and his focus and concentration are good and he can use precautions and prevent risks taking care of himself.
[10] A presentence report was prepared in this matter. It does not reflect well on the defendant. His previous domestic partner reported that the defendant became increasingly threatening and aggressive during their relationship, culminating in a beating so bad that their son did not recognize her. This misconduct resulted in his conviction for assault causing bodily harm in 2005 and the imposition of a nine month conditional sentence. This is the longest sentence imposed on the defendant. Subsequent sentences for assault were dealt with by custodial dispositions to a maximum of 140 days "time served". It may be that these sentences reflect submissions about the defendant's brain injury.
[11] Ms Wolsey advised the author of the presentence report that the defendant became emotionally abusive early in their relationship and she was always on "pins and needles" while trying to keep him happy. The defendant was convicted of assaulting her in 2009. The victim reported that after the incident on 9 May 2011 she decided it was time to leave. Both domestic partners declared that the defendant has been delinquent in child support. Ms Wolsey stated she is pursuing a divorce with no access to the children and no future contact with the defendant.
[12] The presentence report also includes the following account:
The offender denied committing the offences for which he was found guilty. He explained Ms Wolsey fabricated the allegations after he told her their relationship was over. He then stated that his criminal record, 'came back to haunt him'. He minimized his previous assault conviction against Ms Wolsey as well, indicating that she had embellished the facts at that time.
The offender has been convicted of assaulting his former common-law partner, a police officer, correctional officers, and unrelated individuals. He attributed anger issues, and subsequent criminal convictions on the residual effects of his head injury, explaining that he did not like it when people put their hands on him or called him stupid. The offender advised that he no longer suffered any ill effects from injury and was feeling great, both mentally and physically.
Sentencing Principles
[13] Domestic abuse can be an isolated event but in too many cases it is part of a pattern of conduct that lasts until the victim feels compelled to leave the relationship. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has noted that "the victim is often subjected not only to continuing abuse, both physical and emotional, but also experiences perpetual fear of the offender"; see R v Bates, [2000] O.J. No. 2558. The principles of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code. It has been held that for domestic violence, denunciation and deterrence are the controlling factors; see R v Menary 2012 ONCA 706. In this case, specific deterrence is particularly relevant.
[14] The defendant lacks insight and remorse. He has a history of violence, including towards two domestic partners. His present crimes did not result in serious or lasting physical injury. However, his manipulative and demeaning conduct kept the victim constantly on edge and caused significant emotional harm.
[15] In determining the appropriate sentence, I have not ignored the brain injury sustained by the defendant 12 years ago, but the relevance of this fact is not clear. Dr. Gulati points out that the defendant's "behavioural and emotional dysregulation" is consistent with such trauma and adds that this may have aggravated pre-existing behaviour tendencies and personality traits. What is not in doubt is that the defendant is criminally responsible for his actions and that previous sentences have failed to deter or rehabilitate him. He must be made to understand that he cannot assault others, especially domestic partners. That is the objective of the custodial part of this sentence. The probation order is designed to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and also to protect the victim.
Sentence
[16] The defendant has served 40 days of pre-sentence custody. Applying a credit of 1.5 to 1 that amounts to 60 days or two months. He is sentenced to an additional 16 months as follows: Four months for each of the two assaults with a weapon, to run concurrently; four months for each of the three assaults, to run consecutively; and two months for threatening death, to run concurrently. I order that he not contact the victim while in prison. After release from custody, he will be subject to a probation order for a period of three years on terms that include reporting to a probation officer as required, counselling as directed, and not to associate with the victim or be within 500 metres of any place he knows her to live, work, worship, or go to school at. The non-association clause is subject to contact by legal counsel or any family court order to the contrary. In the absence of a family court order providing for custody or access to his children, he cannot contact A., D. or R. without the approval of his probation officer, in consultation with the appropriate Children's Aid Society. In addition, I direct the defendant to comply with two ancillary orders; he must provide a sample of his DNA and not possess weapons as defined in section 110 of the Code for a period of five years.
Released: August 22, 2013
Signed: "Justice J. De Filippis"
