Court File and Parties
Court File No.: Brampton - 13-1229 Date: 2015-02-09 Ontario Court of Justice (Central West Region)
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
- Counsel: S. Latimer
- and -
Satya Lal
- Counsel: R. Christie
Heard: October 31, 2014, January 29, 2015
Reasons for Sentence
Schreck J.:
The Offence
[1] On October 21, 2014, Satya Lal pleaded guilty to one count of assault in relation to his former domestic partner, Charlotte Pichette. He is now before the Court for sentencing.
[2] Mr. Lal and Ms. Pichette met in 2005 and quickly became involved in a relationship. Mr. Lal, who had been married for 26 years at the time and had two grown children, left his wife and moved in with her. In 2007, Mr. Lal was convicted of assaulting Ms. Pichette. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation for 12 months. One of the terms of his probation required him to complete counselling through the Partner Assault Response program ("PARS"), which he did.
[3] The charge now before the Court, the second in relation to Ms. Pichette, arose after he pushed her in the face during an argument on August 31, 2013. The push resulted in some redness in her face, but she did not require medical attention. Both Ms. Pichette and Mr. Lal had been consuming alcohol at the time. Their relationship is now over.
The Offender's Antecedents
[4] Mr. Lal is 57 years old. He has a university degree in mechanical engineering and has been employed by the same company since 1988. A letter from his employer filed with the Court states that he is an excellent employee. A Pre-Sentence Report has been prepared and it is largely positive.
[5] Mr. Lal has the following criminal record:
| Year | Offence | Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Assault with a weapon | Suspended sentence, 12 months probation |
| 2007 | Assault | Suspended sentence, 12 months probation |
| 2008 | Communicate for the Purpose of Prostitution | Suspended sentence, 12 months probation |
| 2013 | Fail to Comply With Recognizance | Suspended sentence, 12 months probation |
The victim of the assault with a weapon in 2000 was Mr. Lal's son. As stated earlier, the victim of the 2007 assault was the same victim as in the case now before the Court. The conviction for failing to comply with a recognizance arose when Mr. Lal was on bail for the current offence and he telephoned Ms. Pichette in contravention of his bail conditions in an unsuccessful effort to persuade her to reconcile with him. I am mindful that this last conviction was for an offence committed subsequent to the offence which he is now being sentenced for and therefore cannot be considered as part of his record for sentencing purposes: R. v. Skolnik, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 47 at pp. 58-59.
[6] Counsel for Mr. Lal tendered a letter from Caress Canada Counselling Services which states that he attended six one-hour counselling and psychotherapy sessions related to domestic violence and anger management. The author of the letter noted that "[h]is attendance was advised by his lawyer as a result of Domestic Violence case charges." As stated earlier, Mr. Lal also completed the Partner Assault Response ("PARS") program as part of the probation imposed on him as a result of his 2007 conviction for assaulting Ms. Pichette.
[7] In the course of submissions, counsel for Mr. Lal stated that the incident giving rise to the charge was "fueled by alcohol" but that after the incident, Mr. Lal gave up consuming any alcohol. Given that Mr. Lal told the author of the Pre-Sentence Report that he "denies any issues with drugs or alcohol", it is not entirely clear to me what weight, if any, this new-found abstinence should be given.
The Victim Impact Statement
[8] Ms. Pichette prepared a victim impact statement which she read aloud in court. In it, she describes a pattern of ongoing physical and emotional abuse that lasted eight years, resulting in significant emotional scars from which she has only just begun to heal. While I have great sympathy for Ms. Pichette and hope that she recovers, I must and will sentence Mr. Lal only for the offence to which he has pleaded guilty.
Positions of the Parties
[9] The Crown takes the position that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of imprisonment for 60 days less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by a period of probation. Defence counsel suggests a suspended sentence and probation or, in the alternative, a conditional sentence of up to 120 days.
Analysis
[10] It is a mitigating factor that Mr. Lal has a longstanding work history and is clearly capable of being a contributing member of society. Also mitigating is the fact that he has pleaded guilty and thereby accepted some responsibility for his actions. It is well established that a guilty plea is a significant demonstration of remorse. That said, I note that the plea can hardly be described as early, having been entered well over a year after the offence.
[11] While I acknowledge that Mr. Lal enrolled himself in anger management counselling after being charged with this offence, I give this fact limited weight given that Mr. Lal has already been through the PARS program, apparently to no avail.
[12] I have also been advised that at the beginning of his relationship with Ms. Pichette, Mr. Lal helped her to regain access to her children. A letter Ms. Pichette wrote when Mr. Lal was charged with assaulting her in 2007 was filed as an exhibit. In it, she says a number of positive things about Mr. Lal and expresses considerable affection for him. None of this is unusual. In most cases of domestic violence, there once was and may continue to be affection between the parties. Those who engage in domestic violence are rarely without any redeeming qualities, and it is hardly surprising that they may have treated their partners with kindness on other occasions. Most domestic relationships start with good feelings. Some develop into violent situations, but the fact that they did not start out that way does not make the violence any less unacceptable.
[13] The fact that the offence was committed in relation to a domestic partner is, by virtue of s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, an aggravating factor. Another significant aggravating factor in this case is Mr. Lal's prior record, which involves two previous incidents of domestic violence, one of which was in relation to the same victim.
[14] In cases involving domestic violence, the predominant sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence: R. v. Rahaman, 2008 ONCA 1, [2008] O.J. No. 1 (C.A.) at para. 46. In this case, given Mr. Lal's record, the objective of specific deterrence is one which must be given some primacy. For this reason, I am unable to accept the defence submission that a suspended sentence is an appropriate disposition in this case. The suspended sentence Mr. Lal received for the assault with a weapon on his son did not deter him from assaulting Ms. Pichette in 2007, and the suspended sentence he received on that occasion did not deter him from assaulting her a second time. Mr. Lal's counsel has advised me that after breaching his bail in 2013, Mr. Lal served almost a month in pre-sentence custody before pleading guilty and that he has learned from this experience. While I have no doubt that Mr. Lal has learned that there are consequences to failing to abide by his bail conditions, I am not at all satisfied that he has learned that he is not free to treat those he lives with with violence. In my view, more must be done to ensure that he receives the message.
[15] Having determined that a suspended sentence is not appropriate, the issue that must now be resolved is whether the sentence of imprisonment which is clearly mandated in this case can be served in the community. The offence for which Mr. Lal is being sentenced is not one of those excluded in subsections (b) to (f) of s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code. What remains to be determined is whether it meets the requirements of subsection (a), that is, that a conditional sentence would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code.
[16] I am satisfied that a conditional sentence would not endanger the safety of the community. This does not mean, however, that I am persuaded that he would abide by the conditions of a conditional sentence. I note that he has a conviction for failing to comply with a recognizance.
[17] More difficult is the question of whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 and 718.2. These include the treatment of domestic violence as an aggravating factor (s. 718.2(a)(ii)) and the objective of specific deterrence (s. 718(b)), both of which are of significance in this case. Mr. Lal has been subjected to various forms of supervision in the past for similar offences as well as unrelated offences, yet he has continued to re-offend. While I appreciate that a conditional sentence is more punitive than a probation order and has deterrent value, I am not satisfied that such a sentence would have the effect of deterring Mr. Lal as well as others like him who believe that they can repeatedly engage in domestic violence, nor would such a sentence sufficiently denounce this sort of repeated conduct. In my view, a conditional sentence in the circumstances of this case would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
[18] That said, I do not believe that a sentence of the length suggested by the Crown is warranted. This is a first sentence of imprisonment and as such should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused: R. v. Priest (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.) at para. 23. In my view, a sentence of 30 days is hopefully sufficient to drive home the message that Mr. Lal cannot continue to engage in this type of conduct. From this, I will deduct the five days of pre-trial custody he has served. Credited on a one-and-a-half to one basis, this is the equivalent to seven and a half days, which I will round up to eight days. Given that Mr. Lal is employed, I am prepared to allow him to serve this sentence on an intermittent basis.
Sentence Imposed
[19] The sentence to be imposed is therefore one of imprisonment for 22 days. Mr. Lal will be taken into custody today for processing and then released. He will then surrender himself into custody at the jail at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, February 13, 2015 and remain in custody until 6:00 a.m. on Monday, February 16, 2015 and thereafter between each subsequent Friday at 8:00 p.m. and the following Monday at 6:00 a.m. until such time as the sentence has been served.
[20] In addition, subsequent to serving his sentence and while not in custody, Mr. Lal will be placed on probation for a period of 24 months. In addition to the statutory conditions, the following conditions are imposed:
Report in person to a probation officer within two working days and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by the probation officer to assist in your supervision.
Do not communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with Charlotte Pichette.
Do not be within 500 metres of any place where you know Charlotte Pichette to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know her to be.
Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer for alcohol abuse and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer and sign any release of information form as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
I decline to impose a condition that he attend the PARS program. He has been through it once already and has also obtained counselling on his own.
Ancillary Orders
[21] Given Mr. Lal's antecedents, in my view it is in the best interests of the administration of justice for me to make an Order, pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, that he provide such samples of bodily substances as may be required for forensic DNA analysis and inclusion in the national databank.
[22] I also order, pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Lal be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, for a period of five years.
Justice P.A. Schreck
Released: February 9, 2015.