Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: December 11, 2013

Court File No.: Central East - Newmarket 4911-998-10-01971-00

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— And —

Renee Laurence

Before: Justice K.P. Wright

Reasons for Sentence released on: December 11, 2013

Counsel

J. Costain and C. Goodier — counsel for the Crown

P. Cooper and H. Chapman — counsel for the accused Renee Laurence

WRIGHT J.:

Introduction

[1] On November 1, 2013 Renee Laurence pled guilty to one count of manslaughter, in relation to the stabbing death of Greg Goodeve on February 26, 2010.

Facts

[2] A fulsome accounting of the facts can be found in the agreed statement of facts marked as Exhibit #1 on this sentencing. The following is a summary of those facts to provide some much needed context to this judgment.

[3] Renee Laurence and Greg Goodeve had been in an intimate relationship since the latter part of 2007. They were engaged to be married in 2009 and were living together in a basement apartment at 219 Bluegrass Boulevard in Richmond Hill.

[4] Greg Goodeve had been employed at the Wilson Niblett car dealership in Richmond Hill as a painter for 13 years. Renee Laurence was employed at Red Lobster as a waitress.

[5] Their relationship was a violent and tumultuous one, in large measure due to alcohol consumption. Ms. Laurence was an alcoholic, requiring large amounts of alcohol to get through the day. Mr. Goodeve also consumed alcohol; on the night of his death the amount of alcohol in his body was three times the legal limit to drive a motor vehicle. Prior to his death, Mr. Goodeve was trying to get them both help to stop drinking. In December 2009, when he made inquiries about counselling for he and Ms. Laurence, he relayed that alcohol and mutual violence played a role in their relationship.

[6] On February 26, 2010, a 911 call was placed by Renee Laurence requesting assistance at their residence from the police and paramedics. When police and paramedics arrived Mr. Goodeve was on the floor of the basement apartment with vital signs absent and was pronounced dead at the scene. The cause of death was one fatal stab wound, with a kitchen knife to his upper chest, which punctured his lung and then hit his pulmonary artery. Death was imminent as his lungs filled with blood making it impossible for him to breathe.

[7] Following the incident Ms. Laurence complained to emergency staff of pain to her head and breast area. Clearly there had been yet another violent altercation between these two people before the fatal stab that ended Mr. Goodeve's life.

[8] It is agreed that at the time Ms. Laurence stabbed Mr. Goodeve, after she had been consuming alcohol to such an extent, that she did not intend the consequences of her actions.

Impact on the Victims

[9] In the end Greg Goodeve lost his life. He was forty-five years old when he died. He left behind family and friends and a lifetime of memories.

[10] I was presented with victim impact statements from three members of Mr. Goodeve's family: his father, Chris Goodeve; his sister, Jennifer Hutchin; and his brother, Lawrence Rodger. From listening to and reviewing these statements I know that Greg was deeply loved by his family and friends and that he loved them also. There is no doubt his death has left a seismic hole in their lives and in their hearts. It seems the passage of time, thus far, has done little to relieve their pain and suffering. It is my hope that the closure of these criminal proceedings will bring some sense of relief to the profound grief his family bears on a daily basis.

Position of the Parties

[11] Crown counsel and defence counsel jointly submit that a sentence of six years in jail, less time served, is the appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances.

[12] The Court of Appeal has made it clear that a trial judge is obliged to give serious consideration to a joint submission. The court has repeatedly held that trial judges should not reject joint submissions unless the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and the sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. See R. v. Rubenstein (1987), 41 C.C.C. (3d) 91 (Ont. C.A.).

[13] This is a high threshold and it is intended to foster confidence in an accused, who has given up his right to a trial, that the joint submission he obtained in return for a plea of guilty will be respected by the sentencing judge.

The Law

[14] The principles for sentencing in a manslaughter are clearly set out by Fuerst J. in R. v. Reid, [2012] O.J. No. 6313. They are as follows:

43 The objectives of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code. They are: the denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to the victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of reasonability in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.

44 Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances.

45 The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. However, a diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for the offence, and there is a wide variation in the range of sentence. At one end of the manslaughter spectrum, the circumstances may approximate an unintentional and almost accidental killing, while there will be those approaching murder at the opposite extremity: see R. v. Carrière (2002), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 569 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 10.

46 The determination of the fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at para. 15, "The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction". The facts of the offence, the circumstances of the accused, and his or her moral blameworthiness are all considerations.

Circumstances of the Offender

[15] Renee Laurence is currently 34 years of age; she was 30 years old at the time of the stabbing. She comes before this court with no criminal record. She is high-school educated and worked most of her adult life in the service industry.

[16] The pre-sentence material reveals that Ms. Laurence had a difficult and unhappy childhood. She reports that both her parents were alcoholics and that she was physically abused by her father when growing up. She was introduced to alcohol at 14 years of age and by the time she reached her mid-twenties alcohol had become part of her daily routine, she could not function without it. Drugs also played a significant role in Ms. Laurence's life in her 20s. She used cocaine almost daily and was an habitual marijuana user.

[17] Clinical assessments of Ms. Laurence in July 2010 and October 2013 report that she suffers from the following mental health disorders:

1. Depression
2. Alcohol and Substance Abuse Disorder
3. Borderline Personality Disorder

[18] In addition she suffers from feelings of personal inadequacy and anxiety. Testing points to evidence of a Dependent Personality Style with possible Anti-Social and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Features.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[19] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code mandates that the Court consider any relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender that may increase or reduce the sentence to be imposed.

[20] The single most aggravating feature in this case is that this killing was in the context of a domestic relationship. The fact that Ms. Laurence and Mr. Goodeve were in an intimate relationship at the time of his death and that it happened in the home they shared together are significantly aggravating and I am duty bound to consider it so.

[21] Mitigating is that Ms. Laurence comes before me as a first offender, with no criminal record. I am mindful that there is a well documented history of alcohol leading to violence in Ms. Laurence's inter-personal relationships. However, it is abundantly clear that substance abuse and alcohol have been the primary triggers leading to violence. Abstinence from alcohol is the key to Ms. Laurence's ability to fully rehabilitate herself and also greatly reduces the risk of her being violent in the future.

[22] In that regard Ms. Laurence has taken significant steps on her path to rehabilitation. I have nine letters from friends and family members outlining the profound transformation that has taken place in her life since being charged. She has completely abstained from the consumption of drugs and alcohol and has, to her credit, remained sober for almost four years. She is seeing health care professionals and taking any and all necessary medications for her mental health issues. She has reconnected with friends and family and has been rewarded with their love and support. The fact that Ms. Laurence has the support of friends and family is not by definition a mitigating circumstance, but it nonetheless gives me great confidence in her ability to one day be fully rehabilitated.

[23] Moreover, I accept that Ms. Laurence has a very deep and genuine sense of remorse, sorrow and grief for her actions. This is demonstrated in her acknowledgement of the harm she has done and her preparedness to step into custody more than a month before sentence would be rendered.

Analysis

[24] The determination of a fit sentence under these unique circumstances is a difficult one. I am mindful that there is no sentence which can address the objective of reparation to the victims. This act of violence which cost Greg Goodeve his life requires a sentence in which considerations of general deterrence must predominate, although not to the extent of standing in the way of rehabilitative goals.

[25] Accordingly, having regard to the entirety of the circumstances that attach to this case, I find that the joint position of six years is an appropriate one.

[26] Ms. Laurence, I hereby sentence you to six years in the penitentiary. I am prepared to give Ms. Laurence credit on a 1.5 to 1 basis for time served to date. In reaching that decision I have taken into account the onerous and restrictive bail Ms. Laurence has been on for three years and the loss of earned remission while detained in custody. Ms. Laurence will be given credit for 314 days, which leaves a remaining five years, one month and 21 days to be served.

[27] Ms. Laurence will be required to provide a sample of her DNA pursuant to section 487.04 of the Criminal Code.

[28] Ms. Laurence will be prohibited from possessing any weapons for her lifetime as defined by and pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

[29] Finally there will be an order that Ms. Laurence not be permitted to have any contact, directly or indirectly, with Greg Goodeve's family while incarcerated, pursuant to section 743.21 of the Criminal Code.

[30] That completes the sentencing in this matter.

Released: December 11, 2013

Signed: Justice K.P. Wright