WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under s.486.4(2.2) (Victim Under 18) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the publishing or broadcast of any information that would tend to identify the victims.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2016-07-12

Court File No.: 16-03147

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Stefan Jonathan Ascenzi

Sentencing

Counsel:

• Ms. Jennifer Gleitman, counsel for the Crown
• Mr. Christophe Preobrazenski, counsel for the accused

Judge: Kenkel J.

Introduction

[1] Mr. Ascenzi pleaded guilty to:

• Two counts of procuring s.212(1);
• One count of uttering a threat to cause death s.264.1(1); and,
• One count of Failing to Comply with a Recognizance s.145(3).

[2] The Crown proceeded by indictment on all counts and this plea comes after a preliminary hearing, committal, then re-election to this court.

[3] Both the Crown and defence agree that the accused should be given 2 years credit for the time he spent in custody in relation to these charges and the extended period for which he's been on house arrest with electronic bracelet monitoring.

[4] The Crown submits that a further year in jail should be imposed. The defence requests "time served" or a short intermittent sentence if further jail time is required.

[5] The offences have had a terrible impact on the victims and their families. While no court cannot undo the damage that has been done, their input on sentence has been helpful and I thank them for having the courage to attend and participate in these proceedings.

The Offences

[6] Mr. Ascenzi lured the two young complainants into working for him as dancers at strip clubs. He then encouraged them to make more money by adding prostitution "extras" while working at the clubs. Both complainants turned all of their money over to Ascenzi. One victim worked for him for two months, the other for eleven days. Mr. Ascenzi used the monies he took from the victims to finance his lifestyle and his aspirations to join the music business.

[7] During a recorded phone conversation another complainant who had been with Ascenzi when he procured the complainant KS, told Ascenzi that she was ending their relationship. He told her, "I feel like smashing your fucking head … I'm going to fuck you up … I don't give a fuck if I go to jail I'll smash you out." He was angry that the complainant would interfere with his money and his business. The conversation not only shows the threat which is the subject of one of the charges, but also the accused's attitude to the women he was involved with at the time. It's plain the only person he truly cared about was himself.

[8] While on bail the accused was observed returning to his residence without a surety with him as required by his bail. He explained to the police that he'd just dropped off his surety at work. He admits that was a breach of his recognizance.

The Accused's Circumstances

[9] Mr. Ascenzi did not know his father and his early home life was chaotic with multiple moves and limited resources. He started high school well but by grade 11 he was failing his courses and he chose to leave school. He later enrolled in adult education but only attended 2 weeks of that program. He worked as a general labourer, then had some mechanical training before becoming involved in the music business.

[10] Mr. Ascenzi is described by those who know him as personable and charming, positive traits which in this case he misused to manipulate young women for his own gain.

[11] Mr. Ascenzi's house arrest bail was eventually varied to permit him to work. He's worked with a company now for the past 8 months. His employer says he has potential and is encouraging him to go back and obtain his high school equivalency so that he can register with the Ontario College of Trades and start an apprenticeship. Mr. Ascenzi has also been doing other occasional work on weekends and has been described as a "not bad" worker who is polite and respectful.

[12] Mr. Ascenzi reconciled with his childhood girlfriend after these charges and they now have two children together. Since the bail variation this April he's lived with her and his income has helped support the family.

Aggravating Circumstances

[13] The following circumstances aggravate sentence:

• The ages of the two procuring complainants – 18 and 20;
• The high level of exploitation involved;
• The fact of a prior record although unrelated – a drug conviction which resulted in a 12 month conditional sentence and a prior finding of guilt; and,
• The terrible impact of the offences on the complainants and their families as set out in their evidence and Victim Impact Statements.

Mitigating Circumstances

[14] The following circumstances mitigate sentence:

• The fact of the plea, although after preliminary hearing and committal to trial it remains some indication of remorse;
• Pre-trial custody and extended period on house arrest release with electronic monitoring all credited as equivalent of 2 years jail;
• The accused's conduct while on release for a substantial time in the community. The circumstances of the one breach do not detract substantially from the other positive aspects of his conduct; and,
• The accused's employment since his bail was varied to permit work showing some effort and ability to reform himself.

I do not accept the accused's statements about the complainant RC submitted by defence counsel as evidence that could mitigate sentence.

Analysis

[15] In R v. Downey, [1992] SCJ No. 48 and the many cases that have followed, courts have denounced the exploitation of young women procured into prostitution to satisfy the greed of the offender. General deterrence and denunciation are paramount considerations on sentence. Significant jail sentences are typically imposed in these cases to denounce the conduct and the harm done, and to deter the offender and others like-minded from engaging in that conduct in the future.

[16] No sentence that I could impose could take back the harm done in this case to the victims and their families. The sentence imposed must acknowledge that harm though and show the accused he is responsible for the inevitable impact of his actions.

[17] Mr. Ascenzi spent a total of 233 days in jail which both parties agree should be credited as 350 days per R v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. He's been on strict house arrest bail conditions including electronic monitoring through most of the period for 1407 days to April 1st, 2016 and I would add to that 103 days to today's date for a total of 1510 days. Counsel agree to attribute .25 days to each of those days for a total of 377.5 or 378 days. Total credit for pre-trial custody is therefore 350 + 378 days = 728 days or the equivalent of 2 years (730 days).

[18] In R v. Bloomfield, 2016 ONCA 447, the Court of Appeal recently upheld an 18 month sentence for procuring. The accused was a youthful first offender but the victim was 14 years old which is a serious aggravating feature. The defence has submitted other cases which suggest that two years time-served is within the range of sentence although other higher sentences are certainly available.

[19] The unusual feature in this case is the extended time on strict release. I agree with the Crown that typically a jail sentence of three years would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentence in the circumstances of this case including the impact on the victims. However, it's been 4 years and over 9 months since the accused's arrest and after a period in jail he spent well over 2 years on a very strict house arrest with electronic monitoring. But for one minor breach he's demonstrated that he's matured and can comply with conditions imposed. He's repaired relationships and has lived perhaps the most stable period in his life. When his bail was varied to permit work he did that and the fact that he's remained employed with the same company for so many months again shows positive change and maturity.

[20] Considering all of the circumstances I find that it's not necessary in this particular case to order the accused back to jail to address deterrence or denunciation. He's been subject to significant restriction of his liberty for an extended time and to re-incarcerate him now risks undoing the positive changes he's made.

[21] I find that the public interest still requires extended supervision in the community. Such monitoring is also in the accused's interest given the positive changes he's made while on strict release. Accordingly, I will suspend the passing of sentence on all three counts and place the accused on probation for a maximum term of 3 years on the following conditions:

• Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
• Report today and thereafter as required;
• Reside at an address approved of by probation;
• Not have any contact directly or indirectly with the four persons named by the Crown (names listed in probation order);
• Not to attend within 100 metres of any known place of residence, employment or education of those four persons;
• Comply with any assessment as directed by probation and take counselling as directed;
• Sign any releases necessary for probation to monitor counselling;
• Not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code; and,
• Perform 100 hours of community service within the first 12 months.

[22] Considering the fact of a prior record, the circumstances of these offences, the role that DNA can play in the investigation of these and related offences, the strong public interest in those investigations and the minimal intrusion on the accused's privacy given the safeguards in the databank system, I direct that Mr. Ascenzi provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.

[23] There will be a s.109 order for 10 years. There is a victim fine surcharge on each count and the accused will have 12 months to pay those fines.

Signed: "Justice Joseph F. Kenkel"

Released: July 12, 2016