Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2015-09-16

Court File No.: Durham Region 998-15-25163

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Christopher Goneau

Judicial Officer and Counsel

Before: Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on: September 4, 2015

Reasons for Judgment released on: September 16, 2015

Counsel:

• Ms. M. Insanic — counsel for the Crown
• Mr. D. Parry — counsel for the accused

Reasons for Judgment

De Filippis J.:

Background and Investigation

[1] In October 2014 members of the Durham Regional Police Service's Drug Enforcement Unit commenced an investigation known as Project Keystorm. Two of the main targets of the investigation were XX (still before the court) and Cuong Lang (who has been sentenced). On February 26, 2015 the Superior Court granted a s.186 wiretap authorization. The intercepted communications reveal that the defendant, Christopher Goneau, and his associate, YY (also still before the court), purchased cocaine from XX for resale to others.

Guilty Plea

[2] The defendant pled guilty to two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and one count of failure to comply with a recognizance.

Agreed Facts

[3] The agreed facts, based on the wiretap, surveillance and other evidence, are as follows:

On March 3, 2015, XX texted Goneau and offered to sell him half a kilogram of cocaine for $27,000. They arranged to meet later that day at Lang's residence. Goneau drove his white Mercedes to Lang's residence and went inside. At approximately 12:52, XX arrived at the residence, went inside, and provided the cocaine to Goneau. Several minutes later, Goneau exited the residence and drove away. Three hours later, Goneau called XX and said he wanted to get another half kilogram of cocaine the following day, provided it was the same quality.

On March 31, 2015 Goneau texted Shane Bradley, another target of the investigation (who has been sentenced), and said that he needed help to provide a buddy a half kilogram of cocaine as his regular supplier is not around for two weeks. Bradley agreed to sell Goneau a half kilogram for $27,000 and told him to come to the shed behind his house. At 11:25 police surveillance observed Goneau, driving his white Mercedes, arrive at Bradley's residence and go into the shed. Seven minutes later YY arrived. The police had installed a listening device in the shed, which intercepted the ensuing conversation. Goneau complained that in the last year three of his drug runners had been arrested, costing him more than $90,000 in cash and product seized by the police. Goneau, Bradley, and YY discussed the quality of the cocaine. YY asked for a brown Wendy's paper bag to conceal the cocaine. At 11:47 a.m. Goneau and YY departed. YY was carrying the brown bag containing the cocaine. They drove to Goneau's residence in their respective vehicles. YY went inside, carrying the brown paper bag with the cocaine. Ten minutes later he exited, got into the white Mercedes with Goneau, and they drove away from the area.

Later that day, the police arrested Goneau for possession for the purpose of trafficking and executed a warrant to search his residence. In the kitchen, concealed beneath the oven, police found a bag containing 485 grams of cocaine. In the bedroom they found a pail containing 655 grams of Lidocaine and a pail containing 159 grams of Benzocaine, both of which are cutting agents used to dilute cocaine, thereby increasing the quantity. They also found two cocaine presses, which are used to compact the powder after it has been diluted by cutting agents. In the kitchen they found $2,800 in Canadian currency, which was proceeds of Goneau's drug trafficking.

On April 2, 2015 Goneau was granted bail.

On April 13, 2015 Goneau called XX and said he was out on bail and ready to resume business. Goneau said he needed nine ounces of cocaine and they agreed on a price of $13,750. Goneau insisted that the cocaine be "good stuff to get things going smooth again." The next day, Goneau called XX to arrange a place to meet and complete the deal. Goneau suggested that they meet at YY's house to complete the deal. At approximately 11:51 XX arrived by car at the home of YY in Pickering. XX provided Goneau the nine ounces of cocaine in exchange for cash. Five minutes later XX exited the residence and drove away from the area. Half an hour later, XX called Goneau again and complained that Goneau had given him only $13,200 and therefore was $550 short of the sales price. Goneau agreed to make up the difference the next time. A few hours later, Goneau called and texted XX to complain about the quality of the cocaine. Goneau said that his friend had just cooked it and had lost a lot in the cooking process (which was indicative of cocaine that had been adulterated with a cutting agent). Goneau later told XX that he had already trafficked six of the ounces, but he still had three remaining, which he wished to exchange for higher quality cocaine.

On April 21, 2015 the investigation was concluded and several search warrants were executed, including at an apartment in Toronto that Goneau had access to. Goneau was found in the underground parking garage and was arrested. He had $5,140 cash in his pants pocket. Inside the apartment, police found documents and personal possessions in the name of Chris Goneau. In the kitchen cupboard they found 18 grams of ketamine. In the kitchen cupboard and on the bedside table police found Canadian currency totaling $15,420. The cash seized from the apartment and from Goneau's pants related to his drug trafficking activity.

The bail order issued on April 2nd stipulated that the defendant not possess any controlled substances except in accordance with a medical prescription. Goneau violated this condition repeatedly between his release and his later arrest on April 21st.

Sentencing Submissions

[4] The parties agree that a penitentiary term is required in this case. The Crown argues that five years in jail is appropriate. The Defence submits that it should be four years.

[5] In support of its position, the Crown points to several cases, in particular, R v Bryon 2011 ONCA 273, a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, holding that a sentence of five to eight years is appropriate for a person convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in slightly more than one pound of cocaine (570 grams in that case). Defence counsel referred to trial decisions in which lower sentences were imposed having regard to the circumstances of the individual offenders.

Sentencing Principles and Harm

[6] Recently, in R v Bell 2015 ONCJ 257, when faced with similar submissions, I stated the following:

I was provided with helpful decisions from the Court of Appeal for Ontario as well as trial courts. These cases acknowledge the harm caused by the traffic in cocaine and call for deterrent sentences. I am witness to this harm. On any given day, at least one of the 12 judges in Durham Regions will deal with a case that highlights the damage caused by the abuse of cocaine. This addiction can become so severe that it robs the addict of his/her ability to fulfill personal and social obligations. It leads to low self-esteem, family dysfunction, and secondary crime. People suffer and society pays the cost.

Aggravating Factors

[7] The quantity of cocaine and the ongoing commercial enterprise of the enterprise are aggravating factors that engage the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Two other facts highlight the need for specific deterrence: In 2011, the defendant was convicted for possession for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled substance and received a conditional sentence and probation. Moreover, in the present case, the defendant resumed his illicit activity within days of being released on a charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Personal Circumstances and Mitigating Factors

[8] The defendant had a terrible childhood. His father has been "in and out of jail for drug offences" and failed as a parent. Perhaps because of this, his mother did not do as well as expected towards her son and came to reside with "an ex-biker". This man treated the defendant badly. When the defendant's father was released from custody, he stormed his wife's home with a gun and attempted, unsuccessfully, to shoot her new partner. This was witnessed by the defendant; he was nine years old. The defendant later dropped out of high school and was "kicked out of his home" by his mother. It is reasonable to conclude that these personal circumstances contributed to the defendant's criminality.

[9] The defendant's guilty plea is a sign of remorse. Any doubt about that is put to rest by a letter he wrote and read to me. He wants to turn his life around. In this regard, he has the support of his fiancé; she confirmed this by a letter to me and her attendance at the sentence proceedings. These are mitigating factors.

Defendant's Letter

[10] The defendant's letter, reproduced as it was written, is as follows:

To Your honour:

I am writting you this letter today because i want you to know a few things. I understand you must get alot of these letters but please take the time to read this and take It into consideration as i took alot of time to think over my actions. Im am aware of what i was doing was a horible mistake and sitting in jail has made me relize that I have messed up my life greatly. Im taking steps to change my life alot. I have never bin to jail for any period of time and sitting here has made me relize that i have made a major mistake that i cant take back this place is not for me. nor will it ever be. Im going to be taking step bye step to change my life. i have become one of the cleaners in the jail. I also have plans to finish my high school and do programs to help me. I kno honour you dont really know me but I really messed up my life and caused Destruction to others i was unaware of intill i came here. I have Disapointed my loved ones and family alot I have hit rock bottom and all I wanna do is change my life get this over with and live a normal life. Im doing everything i can to fix the mistake I have done and im ready to go get my jail time done and not waiste the courts time. I kno what I have done is very serious and is not to be tollerated in society. I apoligize to the community and the courts. I just hope you know Your honour i am a young man with little experince in jail and really hope you understand i screwed up my life severally. at the end of the day i know i can change for the best get out and make something of my life i am a young man who greatly regrets what i have done I am sorry Your honour for coming before you and waisting your Time nothing i say or do will change the trouble im in but step bye step im going to get my life back together. I just wanted you to know this stuff to show you that I am taking all the right steps to change. I genunily apoligize and hope you take this letter into Consideration Your honour. I can say one thing tho is I will never come back to prison or sell Drugs again. thanks for taking the time to read this Your honour I really appriate it.

Sincrely: Christopher Goneau

Youth as a Mitigating Factor

[11] The final factor I consider in passing sentence is the defendant's age. He is 24 years old. In R v Q.B., [2003] O.J. No. 354, the Court of Appeal for Ontario said the following:

36 Aside from the gravity of the appellant's crimes, the overwhelming factor is his youth. In my view, the trial judge erred in principle in focusing almost exclusively on the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence, given the appellant's age and that this was his first adult prison sentence and his first penitentiary sentence. The length of a first penitentiary sentence for a youthful offender should rarely be determined solely by the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence. Where, as here, the offender has not previously been to penitentiary or served a long adult sentence, the courts ought to proceed on the basis that the shortest possible sentence will achieve the relevant objectives…..

Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[12] The aggravating features of this case are serious and call for a severe penalty. Viewed in this light the Crown position is reasonable; indeed, it is generous to the defendant. The Crown, no doubt, considered the defendant's guilty plea and youthful age in preparing for submissions. The decision I have arrived at reflects these mitigating factors. I also take into account what was presented to me at the sentence hearing; namely, the defendant's letter and the information about his childhood and adolescence.

[13] A guilty plea is considered mitigating because it avoids a trial and/or reflects remorse. The defendant's letter shows his remorse is genuine and substantial. I accept his sincerity. It demonstrates insight and a desire to reform. The support of his fiancé will be important in achieving this goal. Even this might not have been enough to persuade me to accede to the Defence position. However, I do so because of an additional factor; the defendant's personal circumstances. Many accused have had difficult lives. The conditions faced by the defendant go beyond this distressing reality: He has never experienced meaningful childrearing. Before being effectively abandoned by his parents, he was the victim of abuse and witness to violence in the home.

Sentencing Decision

[14] Imposing a sentence that is faithful to the fundamental principles set out in Criminal Code (sections 718 and following) requires a balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors and regard for the directives from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. I have set out my approach to this task in this case. As a result, it is my opinion that a fit and proper sentence is a global term of four years in jail.

Pre-Sentence Custody Credit

[15] The parties differed with respect to the credit for pre-sentence custody. For reasons given during submissions, I agree with the Defence that it should all be at the rate of 1.5 to 1. As of the date of these reasons, the defendant has been in custody awaiting trial for 149 days. Accordingly, the effective period of pre-sentence custody is 224 days.

[16] To give effect to a four year sentence, the defendant is sentenced to three years and 121 days, in addition to the time already spent in custody.

Ancillary Orders

[17] In addition, I also issue the following ancillary orders: The defendant will provide a sample of his DNA, be bound by a weapons and firearms prohibition for life (section 109), and forfeit the illicit drugs. The forfeiture proceedings with respect to the motor vehicle are adjourned pending the resolution of charges faced by co-owner.

Released: September 16, 2015

Signed: "Justice De Filippis"