Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: January 19, 2018
Court File No.: Central East Region: Oshawa Court 17-A36916
Parties
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— And —
Norman Richardson
Before the Court
Justice: Peter C. West
Guilty Plea and Facts Heard: November 1, 2017
Submissions as to Sentence: December 19, 2017 and January 19, 2018
Reasons for Judgment Released: January 19, 2018
Counsel
For the Crown: G. Hendry
For the Defendant Norman Richardson: T. Green
Judgment
WEST J.:
[1] Charge
Norman Richardson is charged with knowingly uttering a threat to cause death, by electronic messaging, to the student body of Eastdale Collegiate in Oshawa, Ontario between September 18, 2017 and October 4, 2017, contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2] Guilty Plea and Bail
On November 1, 2017, Norman Richardson pleaded guilty to one count of threatening. The Crown elected to proceed summarily. Mr. Richardson surrendered himself to police on October 5, 2017, and was arrested. He has been held in custody until his guilty plea. A bail hearing was conducted and Norman King, Norman Richardson's father, was offered as a surety. After his testimony it was agreed by the Crown Mr. King was a suitable surety and conditions of release were agreed upon. A pre-sentence report was ordered for December 19, 2017.
Factual Background
[3] Prior Incident in February 2016
Norman Richardson was a student at Eastdale Collegiate in the 2015/2016 school year. During February 2016, four students received Snapchat messages from Norman Richardson, which threatened he intended to shoot up the school causing these students to contact the principal concerning the threats. Durham Regional Police formally cautioned Mr. Richardson about these messages and advised him if they continued he would be charged with threatening. In addition Mr. Richardson was offered assistance for social support. Mr. Richardson was 16 years old and a young person pursuant to the YCJA. No facts were led to explain why Mr. Richardson engaged in this behaviour or what concerns the DRPS officer had respecting what social support assistance was needed.
[4] Relocation and Expulsion
Mr. Richardson moved from Oshawa to Bancroft to live with his father and began attending North Hastings High School. As a result of these charges in October 2017, Mr. Richardson was "asked to leave and not return" North Hastings High School. He was in effect expelled.
[5] September-October 2017 Snapchat Postings
During the latter part of September and early October 2017, students of Eastdale Collegiate again observed new Snapchat postings by Norman Richardson, which they took as threats to Eastdale Collegiate and North Hastings High School. None of these social media postings were sent directly to the administration offices of the schools. Exhibit 1 provides screen captures of three examples of the Snapchat messages posted by Mr. Richardson.
1. The first photo shows the back of a school bus with a young person with glasses winking with his right eye (photo of accused) and a caption: "Colombine 2017 brap brap (two small images of hand guns & two knives) who's laughing now mother fucker."
2. The next photo shows a hand gun taken apart with the message: "1 like, official_expoon_slayer Time to test her out!!"
3. The final photo shows a number of photos of hand guns with message at top: "Willing to pay 800$ tops. Depending on the gun. Must be small prefer with a silencer. Papers or not, bodies or not, cheaper the better. Poiklet Rip Gtg"
[6] Additional Snapchat Postings
The Crown read two other Snapchat postings made by Norman Richardson, without screen captures as part of the facts, namely:
1. "Coming to Oshawa to do same."
2. Photo of a gun case, "Why do I feel if there will be a shooting in Oshawa."
[7] Direct Messages to Students
The two students who took screen captures of some of the postings on October 3, 2017, then received messages directly from Mr. Richardson, which said "RIP." The two students understood this to mean "Rest in Peace."
[8] Police Response and School Lockdown
On October 3, 2017, Durham Regional Police contacted both of the schools, North Hastings High School and Eastdale Collegiate and the school administration immediately initiated security protocols and measures. North Hastings High School was locked down with only one entrance to enter and exit the school. Extra police presence was instituted in and around the school and meetings were held with staff to discuss threat and security protocols. Similar security measures were put into place at Eastdale Collegiate. Word of Mr. Richardson's threatening Snapchat postings got out into both school communities quite quickly. These measures remained in place until October 4, 2017. Mr. Richardson attended Durham Police station with his father and surrendered himself on October 5, 2017 at 11 a.m.
[9] Victim Impact
I will discuss the impact on the two schools later in my reasons when I address the victim impact statements.
Position of the Parties
[10] Crown's Position
The Crown is seeking a custodial sentence of four months less pre-trial custody (27 days actual PTC, on a 1.5 to 1 basis: 41 days credit) leaving 79 days of custody. In addition the Crown is seeking 3 years' probation with conditions and a five year section 110 weapon's prohibition and a DNA order.
[11] Defence Position
The defence submits Mr. Richardson is a youthful first offender and the time he spent in pre-trial custody is more than sufficient to reflect the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the focus of sentencing should be on restraint, rehabilitation and reintegration into society and the best way to achieve those sentencing principles is through a lengthy sentence of probation. The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
Background of the Offender
[12] Age and Criminal Record
Mr. Richardson's birthdate is April 21, 1999, so that on October 3, 2017 he was approximately 18 ½ years old. He has no prior youth court record or criminal record and comes before the court as a first offender.
[13] Pre-Sentence Report
A pre-sentence report (PSR) was ordered and information was received from the offender, his father, Norman King, and his older brother, Phillip Richardson. The Principal of North Hastings High School, Mr. Wayne Stewart, was also contact by probation and provided further information as to the impact of Mr. Richardson's actions.
[14] Family Background
The PSR is a relatively positive report detailing Mr. Richardson's upbringing and background. He has an older brother and younger sister. His parents separated when he was quite young and his father was awarded full custody of all three children. Mr. King moved the family to a home in Cardiff, outside of Bancroft. Initially Mr. Richardson's mother had access at his father's approval, under supervision and with proper notice. When the children reached their teenage years, their mother encouraged them to come and live with her in Oshawa. At age 14 Mr. Richardson lived with his mother for several months. He had been getting into arguments with his father at that time. Mr. Richardson described his current relationship with his mother as not being great.
[15] Mother's Mental Health
Mr. King advised probation that his ex-wife was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder ten years ago.
[16] Education and Employment
Mr. Richardson has eight credits remaining to complete his high school grade twelve diploma and intends to obtain these credits through an "Earn While You Learn" program. Mr. King advised the probation officer that once his son's mother re-entered his life, troubles in school followed. Mr. King was completely unaware of the Durham police speaking to his son in February 2016, as Norman was residing with his mother at that time. The charges his son is facing came as a complete surprise to Mr. King. The principal of North Hastings described Mr. Richardson as "always needing to be the biggest and strongest" and concluded this was the result of Mr. Richardson "missing something" in his life.
Currently Mr. Richardson is working for his father, who has a business supplying firewood to residents in his area. In the summer of 2017 Mr. Richardson worked at a grocery store part-time but often ended up taking extra hours, which meant he worked full-time. Mr. Richardson advised when he was staying in Oshawa with his mother he would often spend time at a local body shop learning about car mechanics. He often used this knowledge and skills he acquired from his father, buying machines, fixing them and selling them.
[17] Substance Use
Illicit drugs and alcohol are not an issue or problem with Mr. Richardson and from the information in the PSR, do not appear to be in any way related to the posts made by Mr. Richardson on Snapchat.
[18] Mental Health Assessment
There is no history of Mr. Richardson having any mental health issues from his father and brother. He has not attended for any counselling in the past. As a result of these charges he has been assessed by Central Intake 310-OPEN and has been referred to Addictions and Mental Health Services in Hastings Prince Edward, Exhibit 5. An appointment has yet to be scheduled by the agency. Certainly this is something that needs to be pursued in order to determine why Mr. Richardson would send these Snapchat posts to fellow students. Mr. King raised concerns with his son being in "denial" respecting his offence and the troubles he finds himself in. The contents of the posts clearly raise concerns about the potential for future risk if there are underlying issues that are not addressed.
[19] Counselling and Assessment Efforts
Mr. Green raised a concern about the author of the PSR not being the probation officer who interviewed Mr. Richardson and Mr. King. I was advised that two probation officers interviewed them in Bancroft, yet the author of the PSR was from the Northumberland Probation and Parole office in Cobourg. I asked counsel to determine the details of the preparation of the PSR to provide to the court. Counsel also advised Mr. Richardson and Mr. King were actively seeking out an agency to complete the assessment, which was done after the original interview in Bancroft with the two probation officers. Mr. King testified during the bail hearing before me about the steps he had taken prior to his son's release from custody respecting assessment and counselling. Mr. Green advised that Mr. Richardson has indicated he wants to attend counselling to be able to understand why he was sending these Snapchat posts. As I have indicated above, it is my view this is the most important aspect of any sentence imposed on Mr. Richardson in order to ensure that this behaviour does not occur in the future, which will provide the best protection for the public.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
[20] Mitigating Factors - Youth and First Offender Status
Mr. Richardson turned 18 on April 21, 2017, which means he was only 18 ½ years old. He is a first offender as an adult and had never been charged with any criminal offence as a young person. I will deal with this in more detail when I discuss the appropriate sentence to be imposed.
[21] Mitigating Factors - Guilty Plea
Mr. Richardson entered a guilty plea at a very early opportunity and this is a demonstration of his remorse for his conduct and an acceptance of responsibility on his part for his actions. Both of these circumstances provide mitigation on sentence. Further, his guilty plea has obviated the necessity of a trial, which has saved court time and expense as well as prevented the witnesses from having to testify about Mr. Richardson's conduct and relive the fear and upset he created. His guilty plea also resulted in this matter being dealt with expeditiously and in my view this has led to finality for the staff, students, parents and community at large if this matter had been set for a trial. It is my view this is also a mitigating circumstance.
[22] Mitigating Factors - Openness to Counselling
Mr. Richardson is open to pursuing counselling to better understand and gain insight into why he sent these messages on social media. To this end he has been assessed and referred from Central Intake 310-OPEN to Addictions and Mental Health Services in Hastings Prince Edward, Exhibit 5.
[23] Mitigating Factors - Compliance with Bail
Mr. Richardson has been living and working with his father since his release from custody on November 1, 2017. He has not been in any further trouble with the police and has complied with his recognizance of bail.
[24] Aggravating Factors - Impact on Schools
The aggravating circumstances relate to the emotional, physical and economic toll Mr. Richardson's actions had on the two school communities and by extension, the communities at large. I was provided two Victim Impact Statements concerning this matter. The first was from the Principal of North Hastings High School, Mr. Wayne Stewart, filed as Exhibit 2. Upon being notified of the threat from Mr. Richardson certain security measures were put in place, namely, locking all doors to the school except one, scheduling a staff meeting before school started to discuss the threat and increasing the police presence in and around the school. This caused considerable upset to some of the staff members and a great deal of time was spent in the days following the staff and students becoming aware of the threat reassuring everyone the appropriate steps were being taken. Mr. Stewart advised a number of staff and students are still apprehensive about Mr. Richardson showing up at the school to carry out his threat. On the day the security measures were implemented 22 students were picked up and taken out of school by their parents. A number of parents expressed concerns about the safety of their children, specifically three female students, who Mr. Richardson had been sending the Snapchat posts to. Finally, some of the social media sent by Mr. Richardson appeared to threaten Mr. Stewart personally and this caused him to be worried about the safety of his wife and children. Mr. Stewart also spoke to the probation officer who prepared the PSR and indicated that time has helped to ease his initial concerns. Presently he does not fear Mr. Richardson being in the community, however, if Mr. Richardson were to walk through the front doors of North Hastings High School he would be concerned.
[25] Aggravating Factors - Impact on Eastdale Collegiate
Mr. Jeff Maharaj, the Principal of Eastdale Collegiate School in Oshawa also wrote a Victim Impact Statement, filed as Exhibit 3. In his letter he indicates Mr. Richardson's conduct had affected both staff and students greatly since September 2017. He indicated that Mr. Richardson had relatively few issues when he was a student at Eastdale but this changed in the last several months when he made the threats he posted on social media. Some students are afraid to come to school, have lost instructional time and have required counselling. Parents and students have complained of the mental strain Mr. Richardson's actions have caused. Staff has also lost hours supporting students and liaising with police. The guidance department has spent countless hours providing counselling to affected students. Mr. Maharaj hoped the judicial system would be able to assist Mr. Richardson to realize the impact of his actions and he believed Mr. Richardson needed to "develop skills to effectively express himself and to interact with his peers without making threats to cause others harm."
[26] Aggravating Factors - Community Impact
There can be no doubt that Norman Richardson's ill-conceived actions caused significant harm to the students and staff of the two schools, as well as caused economic consequences in terms of police manpower and investigation over the two days from when the two students advised their principal of Mr. Richardson's Snapchat postings. Further, it is my view Mr. Richardson's actions had an impact on the community as a whole. I agree with Mr. Stewart's observation that schools are considered by everyone in the community (staff, students, parents and community members) to be a place where students will be safe. Staff expect the administration and school boards to put in place measures that will ensure safety. Mr. Richardson's threats have certainly shaken the confidence that those expectations will be able to be met.
[27] Aggravating Factors - Prior Warning
A further aggravating circumstance is that Mr. Richardson engaged in similar behaviour in February 2016, when he was 16 years of age. He was cautioned and advised by police of the illegality of his actions and was not charged. He was offered community supports, I am assuming in the form of counselling to address the behaviour, which was refused.
[28] Summary of Aggravating Circumstances
All of the above impacts and consequences of Mr. Richardson's actions are aggravating circumstances that must be considered and balanced when determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Richardson.
The Appropriate Sentence
[29] Youth and First Offender Principles
As indicated above, Mr. Richardson has no criminal record. It is important to note as well that Mr. Richardson was just 18 ½ years old when he sent the Snapchat postings. Certainly if he had been charged in February 2016, the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation would have played no part in determining an appropriate sentence (see R. v. P. (B.W.), 2006 SCC 27). In some respects it is unfortunate that an informal diversion program, which many police forces now impose rather than laying formal charges, or if formal charges had been laid, a diversion program initiated by the Crown in Youth Court, which would have addressed the underlying causes of Mr. Richardson's behaviour. The reality is Mr. Richardson was only six months past his 18th birthday when he sent the social media postings and many of the rationales behind the sentencing principles applicable under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, still have considerable significance and importance in his case.
[30] Principle of Restraint
An added feature in Mr. Richardson's sentencing is he is a youthful first offender. As such, it is important to consider the principle of restraint. In R. v. Stein (1974), Martin J.A. made it clear that in the case of a first offender, the court should explore all other dispositions before imposing a custodial sentence:
It is the view of the Court that the sentence imposed upon the appellant does reflect an error in principle. In our view, before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate. In our view, this offence does not fall within the category of offences where a custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to be imposed upon a first offender, nor are there other circumstances which require the imposition of a custodial sentence. [Emphasis added]
[31] Community-Based Dispositions
In R. v. Priest (1996), Rosenberg, J.A. made the following comments concerning R. v. Stein, supra, (at paras. 18 and 19) as well as addressing the issues raised in sentencing a first offender:
As the Stein case shows, it has been an important principle of sentencing in this province that the sentence should constitute the minimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the particular circumstances. This principle implies that trial judges consider community-based dispositions first and impose more serious forms of punishment only when necessary. These principles have now been codified in the recently proclaimed sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Section 718(c) instructs that separation of offenders from society is an appropriate objective of sentencing "where necessary". Section 718.2(d) directs that an offender should not be deprived of liberty "if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".
The principle embodied in now s. 718.2(e) was of particular significance in this case. It provides that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders".
[32] Restraint and Rehabilitation
In R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the judgment in Priest and further held:
…the appellant was a first offender. As such, the restraint principle requires that a sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and where, as here, incarceration must be imposed, the term should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused: see R. v. Priest (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at p. 545.
…the principle of restraint requires the sentencing judge to consider rehabilitation in determining the appropriate length of the sentence. In lowering a sentence given to a first offender, this court stated in R. v. Blanas (2006):
[G]eneral deterrence cannot be the sole consideration. The appellant is relatively youthful and has no prior record and appears to have the full support of her family and community. Appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the appellant.
In serious cases and cases involving violence, rehabilitation alone is not the determinative factor - general deterrence and denunciation are also significant factors to be considered. However, as this court ruled in R. v. Dubinsky, it is an error to focus almost exclusively on general deterrence and fail to consider individual deterrence and rehabilitation, especially when sentencing a first offender. [Emphasis added]
[33] Sentencing Objectives Under Section 718
The purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. I am of the view it is important to indicate what this section sets out and the sections that follow because I believe this is where the applicable principles of sentencing are defined for criminal cases. Under s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing a just sanction. Any sanction imposed must be the result of a fair and balanced consideration of the need to:
a) Denounce the unlawful conduct;
b) Deter the offender, and others, from committing such an offence;
c) Separate the offender from society, where necessary;
d) Assist in the rehabilitation of the offender;
e) Provide reparation for harm done to "victims", or the community; and
f) Provide a sense of responsibility in the offender, while acknowledging the harm done to the "victims" and the community.
How much weight I place on any one objective will depend on the facts of each individual case.
[34] Principle of Proportionality
The "fundamental principle" of sentencing pursuant s. 718.1 of the Code is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." In R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, the Supreme Court explained the dual role of restraint and censure that proportionality plays in sentencing offenders:
[42] For one, it requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function. However, the rights-based, protective angle of proportionality is counter-balanced by its alignment with the "just deserts" philosophy of sentencing, which seeks to ensure that offenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and the harm they caused...Whatever the rationale for proportionality, however, the degree of censure required to express society's condemnation of the offence is always limited by the principle that an offender's sentence must be equivalent to his or her moral culpability, and not greater than it. The two perspectives on proportionality thus converge in a sentence that both speaks out against the offence and punishes the offender no more than is necessary.
[35] Proportionality and Fairness
As Rosenberg J.A. held in R. v. Priest:
The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particular offender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harm occasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.
[36] Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which I have set out above. This section also requires that a sentence be similar to other sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, that the combined duration of consecutive sentences not be unduly long, that an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances be considered.
[37] Application to Youthful First Offender
As indicated above, Mr. Richardson is a youthful first offender and I am guided by the sentencing principles reflected in the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions in Dubinsky and Batisse referenced above, which held individual deterrence and rehabilitation are important sentencing principles in the case of a youthful first offender and should not be ignored in determining an appropriate sentence. In other words, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation should not be over-emphasized.
[38] Community-Based Dispositions First
I am directed, in the case of a youthful first offender, to consider community-based dispositions first and only impose more serious forms of punishment where necessary. The restraint principle requires a sentencing judge to consider all other sanctions apart from incarceration that are reasonable in the circumstances. Where a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate it should be as short as possible and tailored to the circumstances of the individual offender.
[39] Pre-Trial Custody and Deterrence
Mr. Richardson has already spent 27 days in pre-trial custody, which pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, provides for credit of 41 days. It is my view the threat made through these social media posts is extremely serious, particularly having regard to the way it impacted the staff, students, and parents of both schools. Any sentence imposed needs to address the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Individuals who might consider making such threats should know Courts treat such offences seriously and that some period of incarceration will be part of any sentence imposed.
[40] Motivation and Lack of Overt Acts
The facts presented in this case do not shed much light on Mr. Richardson's motivation in sending these Snapchat posts. Mr. Green submitted Mr. Richardson's acts were the result of immaturity and youthful naivety, a school yard prank or Mr. Richardson trying to make a joke to the students he thought would read his Snapchat postings. This may provide some explanation for Mr. Richardson's actions, however, he engaged in similar conduct when he was 16 and was formally cautioned by the police so he knew these postings were not viewed as being a school-yard prank or that anyone would treat them as a joke. An important fact is there was no evidence before me that Mr. Richardson engaged in any acts in furtherance of carrying through with the threats he made. Obviously, this would have significantly increased the seriousness of the offence had there been this type of evidence.
[41] Pre-Trial Custody Addresses Deterrence
I do not have to consider whether a sentence of incarceration is the only appropriate sentence necessary and capable of properly addressing deterrence and denunciation, as Mr. Richardson, who is a youthful first offender, has already spent time in pre-trial custody. In my view the time spent in custody by Mr. Richardson clearly addresses the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation. The 27 days of pre-trial custody at the Central East Correctional Centre would be a specific deterrent to a youthful first offender in bringing home to Mr. Richardson the seriousness of his conduct and also sends the message to others who might engage in similar behaviour that jail is a probable consequence. If I had a clearer understanding of the underlying issues which led to Mr. Richardson sending these postings, a jail sentence may or may not have been appropriate in the circumstances of this case. It is my view, the principles of deterrence and denunciation do not require Mr. Richardson to serve a further two and a half months in custody as is requested by the Crown.
[42] Consideration of Precedent Cases
The Crown provided me with three cases he argued provided precedent for the Crown position. In R. v. B.E.B., a 15 year old, first-time offender, telephoned his school and made a bomb threat. The Youth Court sentenced him to a nine month open custody youth sentence to be followed by 1 year of probation. None of the individual circumstances of B.E.B. were set out in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision reducing the sentence to one of time served (the amount of time served is not indicated). Further, it is my view this judgment is not consistent with the Ontario Court of Appeal's decisions in Stein, Priest, Batisse and Dubinsky, supra, or with R. v. P. (B.W.), 2006 SCC 27, where the Supreme Court of Canada held that the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence are not sentencing principles applicable to young persons, referring to s. 50 of the YCJA. Of course, R. v. B.E.B. was decided before the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. P. (B.W.) and before the introduction of the YCJA. Consequently, this case is not of any assistance in determining an appropriate sentence respecting Mr. Richardson.
[43] R. v. Sager
In R. v. Sager, a 21 year old accused was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment respecting an offence of uttering a threat to police officer to cause death. The facts also included a threat to bomb the police detachment when the accused was stoned on hash and LSD and 26 ounces of Southern Comfort. The accused was not under the influence of any substance when he threatened the officer. The accused had a lengthy record as a youth and as an adult and was described by probation as functionally illiterate and noticeably lacking life-skills. He was also resistant to seeking assistance for psychiatric and substance abuse issues. Initially the sentencing judge imposed a six month jail sentence for the threatening charge but increased the sentence to nine months when he was advised the treatment facility recommended required at least a nine month sentence in order for an offender to be transferred into their program. The B.C. Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to six months having regard to a number of Ontario Court of Appeal decisions which held it was an error to sentence an offender to a longer jail sentence to ensure treatment can be obtained. Again, it is my view this case is of no assistance in determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Richardson given the significant differences in the individual circumstances of Mr. Sager to Mr. Richardson, the most important of which is Mr. Richardson being a youthful first offender.
[44] R. v. Boissoneau
The final case provided by the Crown is R. v. Boissoneau. In this case the accused was a 30 year old aboriginal man, with an extensive criminal record spanning 12 years. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 365 days in prison less credit of 166 days of pre-trial custody, which provided credit of 250 days. The accused sent out messages on his Twitter account expressing terrorist sentiments and he pleaded guilty to threatening to cause death or bodily harm. Sentenced was varied to time served, four months in custody, on an enhanced basis constituted six months in custody. The sentence also reflected other offences for which the accused was sentenced. The accused had a brain injury and suffered from FASD. Again, there are significant differences in the individual circumstances of Mr. Boissoneau and Mr. Richardson, the most important of which is Mr. Richardson being a youthful first offender. I do not find this case to be of much assistance in determining an appropriate and just sentence for Mr. Richardson.
[45] Victim Impact and Support for Rehabilitation
Both of the Victim Impact Statements provided by the principals of the two schools reflect their concern that Mr. Richardson receive support and assistance to better understand the impact and harm caused by his actions. Mr. Maharaj indicated Mr. Richardson needed to "develop skills to effectively express himself and to interact with his peers without making threats to cause others harm." When the matter first came to light in February 2016, the police offered to refer Mr. Richardson to a support agency for intervention and counselling.
[46] Mr. Richardson's Initiative for Counselling
Mr. Richardson has taken the initiative to seek out an assessment and counselling to better understand why this incident occurred. He is awaiting word from the counselling agency as to when his first appointment will be scheduled. Mr. Richardson advised the probation officer he does not use alcohol or drugs and this was confirmed by his father, to the best of his knowledge. This in my view means there is one less issue that has to be dealt with in addressing why Mr. Richardson sent out these Snapchat posts. It is also encouraging that Mr. Richardson has strong family support from his father, who he is currently living and working with and has a good relationship with.
[47] Sentence Imposed
It is my view an appropriate and just sentence, balancing the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation with the sentencing principles of restraint, rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community given Mr. Richardson's youth and lack of a youth or criminal record, is a suspended sentence with three years' probation. The pre-trial credit discussed above will be reflected on the information.
Conditions of Probation
[48] Statutory Terms
The terms and conditions of the probation order will include the statutory terms, the most important of which is to "keep the peace and be of good behaviour." This term means what it says, namely, do not commit any further criminal offences.
[49] Reporting Condition
There will be a reporting condition, you will report immediately to probation and thereafter as determined by your probation officer or anyone designated by your probation officer to assist in your supervision.
[50] Residence Condition
You will reside at an address approved of by your probation officer.
[51] No Contact Condition
You are not to associate or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with Payton Henri-Taylor, Ashtyn David, Melissa Tapley, Wayne Stewart, Natalie Ranger or Jeff Maharaj.
[52] Exception for Letters of Apology
The only exception to the above term relates to the letters of apology you will write to Mr. Wayne Stewart and Mr. Jeff Maharaj, which may be forwarded by your probation officer if deemed appropriate after speaking with the two principals.
[53] Distance Condition - Named Individuals
You are not to be within 100 metres of any place you know the named individuals above reside, work, attend school or place of worship.
[54] Distance Condition - Schools
You are not to be within 200 metres of North Hastings High School in the Town of Bancroft or Eastdale Collegiate in the City of Oshawa.
[55] Counselling Condition
You are to attend for such assessment, counselling or treatment as may be recommended by your probation officer or their designate for anger management, psychiatric or psychological or emotional issues related to the nature of the social media postings made by you or any other reason deemed appropriate by your probation officer and not stop that counselling without the permission of your probation officer.
[56] Medical Release Condition
You will execute a release of medical, psychiatric or other confidential information to your doctor/counsellor/therapist in favour of your probation officer so that they can discuss your progress.
[57] Community Service Condition
You are to perform 50 hours of community service at a rate to be determined by your probation officer but the community services hours are to be completed by the end of twelve months of this probation order.
[58] Essay Condition
You are to write an essay which deals with the impact of your actions to the students, staff, parents and community at large of the two schools your threats were directed towards. Your essay will also deal with the impact on yourself, your family and friends. Your probation officer will determine the length of this essay and whether you have dealt with all of those impacted by your actions.
[59] Letters of Apology Condition
You will write letters of apology, utilizing your insights from your research preparing the essay, to Mr. Wayne Stewart, Principal of North Hastings High School and Mr. Jeff Maharaj, Principal of Eastdale Collegiate and provide these letters to your probation officer.
[60] Weapons Prohibition
You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.
Ancillary Orders
[61] Section 110 Weapons Prohibition and DNA Order
In addition there will be ancillary orders pursuant to section 110, namely, a weapon's prohibition for a period of five (5) years and I am ordering the taking of samples of bodily substances from you that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, pursuant to s. 487.04, as a secondary designated offence.
Released: January 19, 2018
Signed: Justice Peter C. West
Footnote
[1] In R. v. P. (B.W.), supra, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the applicability of the principles of general deterrence and specific deterrence to the sentencing of young persons. The court held that general deterrence is not a principle of youth sentencing under the new regime, nor is there an equivalent concept that can be implied from ss. 3 and 38 of the YCJA. In addition, specific deterrence is also excluded as a consideration in sentencing a young person. The long-term protection of the public is achieved by addressing the circumstances underlying the offending behaviour, by rehabilitation and re-integration of the young person, and by holding the young person accountable through the imposition of meaningful sanctions related to the harm done.