Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 1300480 Newmarket Date: 10 July 2014 Ontario Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Robert William Morton

Sentence

Counsel:

• Mr. McCallion for the Crown
• Mr. Morton Self Represented

Before: Kenkel J.

Introduction

[1] Mr. Morton had a 15 year relationship with the complainant and they have two children together. Although they broke up in 2003, they've remained in regular contact since.

[2] After Mr. Morton was released from serving a jail sentence in an unrelated matter in the Fall of 2012, the complainant told him that she didn't want him in her life any longer. He sent her a flurry of emails and phonecalls in an effort to try to change her mind. He threatened to commit suicide, then days later threatened to come to the mall where she worked and engage in a confrontation with police where he would be killed. He continued those statements even after the intervention of the police when he was speaking directly to a police officer.

[3] Mr. Morton was released from jail but shortly afterwards a further complaint was received and he was warned about breaching the no contact provision of his bail. Again he persisted and he was arrested and charged with failing to comply. From the jail he further violated the no contact provision of his detention order by collect calls to the complainant and by mailing a letter to her home.

[4] Mr. Morton has been found guilty of 6 counts: Criminal Harassment, Fail to Comply x 3, Disobey Court Order x 2.

Submissions of the Crown and Defendant

[5] The Crown submits that denunciation, general deterrence and the protection of the complainant all require a 6 month sentence on top of the 67 days he's spent in pre-trial custody.

[6] Mr. Morton requests the court consider a 4 to 6 month sentence and I infer that he means that pre-trial custody should be deducted from that.

Analysis

[7] The circumstances of the offences are serious. Mr. Morton made alarming threats of confrontation and self-harm in a domestic context that reasonably caused the complainant to fear for her safety and for the safety of those around her. The effect of the offences on the complainant and her children is set out in the Victim Impact Statement relayed via email today.

[8] Mr. Morton's persistence in attempting to communicate with the complainant despite the intervention of the police, despite the imposition of a court order prohibiting contact, and finally despite being incarcerated for the same thing all show the need for a sentence that will demonstrate the importance of court orders and deter Mr. Morton from any thought of trying to resume contact with the complainant.

[9] The criminal record is a factor on sentence, particularly as Mr. Morton was recently released from jail at the time of these offences and that did not deter him from further misconduct.

[10] The impact of the offences on the complainant and her two children is set out in the Victim Impact Statement sent via email.

[11] Mr. Morton is 47 years old and was not working at the time of the offences but had worked in the past as a mechanic and a tow truck operator.

[12] Although the pre-sentence report prepared in 2012 may leave the impression that the complainant had been trying for some time to cease contact with Mr. Morton, it's fair to note that the text message record in this case shows very regular and apparently consensual contact up to the point of Mr. Morton's incarceration and then a request for space afterwards. It was only Mr. Morton's extreme reaction that seemed to push the complainant to want to cease all contact.

[13] I agree with the Crown that general deterrence, denunciation and protection of the complainant and her children require a further custodial sentence with probation. Despite the presence of a record and the aggravating features mentioned I find rehabilitation remains a goal.

[14] The following custodial sentence is required:

• Count 6 Criminal Harassment: 90 days
• Count 7 Fail to Comply: 30 days concurrent
• Counts 1 and 3 Fail to Comply: 30 days concurrent to each other but consecutive to the 90 days Count 6
• Counts 4 and 5 Disobey Order: 60 days concurrent to each other but consecutive to counts 6 and 1

[15] That results in a total sentence of 180 days. From that sentence I deduct credit for time served on a 1.5 to 1 basis as instructed by the Supreme Court (67 x 1.5 = 100.5). 180 days less 101 days is 79 days.

[16] Accordingly I will sentence Mr. Morton to 79 days on count 6, 30 days concurrent on count 7, 30 days concurrent on counts 1 and 3, and 60 days concurrent on counts 4 and 5 for a total remaining sentence of 79 days.

[17] I will also place Mr. Morton on probation for 2 years on the following terms:

• Keep the Peace and Be of Good Behaviour (KTP)
• Report as Required (RAR)
• Not have any contact with the complainant Ann Siebner or her children
• Not to be within 200m of any known place of residence, employment or education of the complainant
• Not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code
• Take counselling and any assessments required as directed by probation and sign any releases necessary for them to monitor compliance

[18] In addition there will be a s.109 order for 20 years and I will also order that the accused provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.

Dated at Newmarket 10 July 2014

Hon. Joseph F. Kenkel