Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: April 17, 2018

Court File No.: Halton 17-2552

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Corbin Collecchio

Before: Justice D.A. Harris

Heard on: December 7, 2017 and February 7, 2018

Reasons for Sentence released on: April 17, 2018

Counsel

Erinn O'Marra — counsel for the Crown

Peter Craniotis — counsel for the accused Corbin Collecchio

Reasons for Sentence

HARRIS D.A. J.:

Introduction

[1] Corbin Collecchio pled guilty to robbery.

[2] This is an indictable offence.

[3] Mr. Collecchio is before me today to be sentenced.

[4] Crown counsel suggested that I should sentence him to imprisonment for one year, followed by probation for three years.

[5] Counsel for Mr. Collecchio suggested that I impose a sentence of imprisonment for 90 days, to be served intermittently, accompanied by probation for two to three years.

[6] Both counsel agreed that I should make the following ancillary orders:

1. a DNA order;
2. a weapons prohibition order pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code.

[7] I find that a sentence of imprisonment for six months, followed by probation for three years is the appropriate sentence here.

[8] My reasons for this are set out under the following subject headings:

1. The fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing;
2. The offence;
3. The impact on the victim;
4. The background of Mr. Collecchio; and
5. Analysis

Fundamental Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

[9] The fundamental purpose of sentencing as expressed in section 718 of the Criminal Code is to contribute to respect for the law, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society, where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders; providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[10] The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender.

[11] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime. There is no single fit sentence for any particular offence.

[12] Doherty J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in R. v. Hamilton that:

The "gravity of the offence" refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by the offence.

[13] He went on to state that:

The "degree of responsibility of the offender" refers to the offender's culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of the offence – especially the fault component – and any specific aspects of the offender's conduct or background that tend to increase or decrease the offender's personal responsibility for the crime.

[14] He then quoted Rosenberg J.A. who had previously described the proportionality requirement 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.

[15] Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, but it is not the only principle to be considered.

[16] I must specifically consider section 718.2(d) which provides that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

[17] I must also consider the impact of section 718.2(e) which provides that "... all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders."

[18] The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of this section in Gladue v. The Queen and said that section 718.2(e) applies to all offenders, and that imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort. Prison is to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions is appropriate to the offence and the offender.

[19] In R. v. Priest, supra the Ontario Court of Appeal made it clear that much of this is simply a codification of the existing law, especially with respect to youthful first offenders.

[20] The primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are individual deterrence and rehabilitation. Except for very serious offences and offences involving violence, these objectives are not only paramount but best achieved by either a suspended sentence and probation or a very short term of imprisonment followed by a term of probation.

[21] Before imposing a custodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are available and only impose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate.

[22] The Supreme Court also noted in Gladue that section 718 now requires a sentencing judge to consider more than the long-standing principles of denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Now a sentencing judge must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harms suffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgment of the harm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. As a general matter restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community.

[23] The maximum sentence for robbery is imprisonment for life.

[24] Before I can apply the above principles however I must examine the offence here, the impact that it had on the victims and the background of Mr. Collecchio.

The Offence

[25] On August 12, 2017, Mr. Collecchio went to the Toronto Dominion Bank on Iroquois Shore Road in Oakville. He handed a note to bank employee PG. It said, "This is a robbery. Give me all fifties and hundreds". She gave him $500 and he left.

[26] He subsequently called police to turn himself in. He claimed to have been motivated by gambling debts.

Impact on the Victim

[27] The victim chose not to submit a Victim Impact Statement.

Background of Mr. Collecchio

[28] I have been provided with a Pre-Sentence Report and several letters which provided me with the following information.

[29] Mr. Collecchio is now 28 years old.

[30] His parents divorced when he was approximately thirteen years old. His mother "kicked" his father out of the house on his thirteenth birthday. Despite his parent's divorce, he had a "great childhood" with lots of love and opportunity. He enjoyed various activities with his family including boating and fishing and was provided with the opportunity to play rep sports.

[31] He has a great relationship with his mother and they talk daily. She resides in Belleville and has her own daycare business.

[32] His father resides in Courtice and is employed as a superintendent on construction sites. His relationship with his father has become more strained since he incurred this current charge and he has not had any contact with him since August 2017. He had requested financial help from his father to assist with his legal obligations, but his father refused to help him. Prior to his offence, he maintained a good relationship with his father, although he has never been as close with his father as he is with his mother.

[33] He has an older brother and a younger sister. While he has good relationships with his siblings, he has not maintained much contact with them as he feels embarrassed by his actions.

[34] His only other long-term relationship was a prior seven month relationship with a female which ended after he discovered that she was cheating on him with his employer.

[35] In his spare time, he spends time with friends, enjoys watching movies and playing video games.

[36] He experienced bullying when he was in public school and high school. There was no physical abuse but he did experience name calling and emotional abuse. His parents encouraged him to stand up for himself but he did not really cope with the emotional effects of the bullying.

[37] He has a college diploma from St. Lawrence College in Kingston for culinary arts. At the time he was enlisted in the Canadian Forces and they covered the course expenses. He was in the military for three and one-half years before he was "medically released" due to sleep walking in 2013. He was upset about his release from the military as he had intended to make a career out of same.

[38] He is interested in pursuing his culinary career further. Since 2013 he has worked in various positions in the field, including management and is currently employed in Belleville.

[39] He rarely consumes alcohol but does admit to regular use of marijuana to help him sleep.

[40] Previously, he was prescribed medication by his family doctor for depression but he did not feel it helped him and did not continue taking same after an initial trial period. While he has not been formally diagnosed, he does believe that he suffers from depression.

[41] He has a gambling addiction. He first started playing poker for money when he was in high school. Once he became of age, he started gambling more often and would engage in online gambling. He would at times "gamble away" his insurance money and would rely on his mother to help him.

[42] Following the offence, he attended counselling in Belleville where he completed 11 individual sessions. The sessions focused on cravings and ongoing triggers, managing stress, family relationships and maintaining abstinence.

[43] Regarding the offence before the Court, Mr. Collecchio has explained that he had ended his relationship with his ex-girlfriend at the time and he was "in a bad spot". Over the course of two days, he gambled away approximately $4000, money which had been earmarked for rent and other bill payments. He owed his mother money from a previous time and did not want to trouble her by asking for more money. He felt trapped and needed money quickly and opted to commit the offence.

[44] He has stated that it was a spontaneous decision and had he thought it through, he would not have acted in such a manner.

[45] He stated further that "this is my rock bottom" and "I made a really stupid decision which I'm going to regret for the rest of my life."

[46] He acknowledged how his actions have impacted those around him, specifically the teller directly involved, noting that he has taken the time to compose an apology letter which has not been delivered. He states that he has every intention to pay the money back and does not want to be labelled as a "criminal".

Analysis

[47] Doherty J.A. aptly described my task here when he began the judgment in R. v. Hamilton, supra by stating:

The imposition of a fit sentence can be as difficult a task as any faced by a trial judge.

[48] Everyone agrees that Mr. Collecchio is going to jail. The question is for how long.

[49] I must craft a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Collecchio and yet, at the same time, one that is responsive to his unique circumstances.

[50] I must consider both the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors when determining the appropriate sentence here.

[51] The aggravating factors can be found in the offence itself.

[52] Mr. Collecchio robbed a bank.

[53] There was no actual violence and he did not even explicitly threaten violence.

[54] However, there was an implicit threat present here.

[55] The note he gave to the bank employee read, "This is a robbery. Give me all fifties and hundreds". Left unsaid, but clearly inferred was "or else I will do something to you".

[56] Even without a Victim Impact Statement, common sense tells me that events like this will have a tremendous emotional impact on the victim receiving the threat.

[57] The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized that bank employees are a vulnerable segment of society.

[58] The offence clearly is a serious one that calls for a serious sentence of imprisonment.

[59] There are also a number of mitigating factors present here.

[60] Mr. Collecchio pled guilty. I take this to be an acceptance of responsibility as well as an expression of remorse. Most importantly, it made it unnecessary for PG to testify. She was spared the ordeal of revisiting her victimization in a public courtroom.

[61] Mr. Collecchio has consistently expressed his remorse, starting shortly after he committed the robbery when he called the police to inform them of what he had done. I can state unequivocally that I have never before heard of a bank robber doing this.

[62] He had no prior criminal record.

[63] He has been bound by bail conditions since his release and has not offended further.

[64] He has recognized the problems that led him to commit the offence and he has taken steps to address those problems so that he will never be back before the court again.

[65] He is still a young man.

[66] He has the support of others in the community which bodes well for his prospects of rehabilitation.

[67] I have repeatedly reminded myself that I must consider "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances" and that Mr. Collecchio "should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances".

[68] I also adopt the comments of Wilkie J. in R. v. Stoutley, that:

Jail is always the last resort, and where it is imposed as here, principally, to satisfy the need for general deterrence and denunciation, its impact, in my view, comes in large measure from the fact of meaningful incarceration, rather than the precise length.

[69] Even, taking these mitigating factors into consideration, I find that a sentence of imprisonment for six months is the minimum necessary to denounce this behaviour and to deter any like-minded individuals from committing the same offence.

[70] I am satisfied that the probation order following that should run for three years. This should maximize both the prospects of Mr. Collecchio's rehabilitation, and the long-term protection of the public.

Sentence

[71] For all of the above reasons, I sentence Mr. Collecchio to imprisonment for six months, followed by probation for three years.

[72] The terms of the probation will require that Mr. Collecchio:

(1) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(2) appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

(3) notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;

(4) report in person to a probation officer within two working days of being released from custody 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 his supervision;

(5) cooperate with his probation officer. He must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor his compliance and he must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to his probation officer on request;

(6) not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with Prabhdeep Gill or Jennifer Fox;

(7) not be within 20 metres of any place where he knows them to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place he knows them to be;

(8) not attend at the Toronto-Dominion Bank, 321 Iroquois Shore Road, Oakville, Ontario;

(9) attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer, and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer;

(10) make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain suitable work or attend school or an educational or training program approved of by the probation officer.

[73] I also make the following two ancillary orders.

[74] Robbery is a primary designated offence and I make an order pursuant to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code, authorizing the taking from Mr. Collecchio of any number of samples of one or more bodily substances, including blood, that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[75] Finally, pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, for the next ten years Mr. Collecchio is prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance.

[76] Mr. Collecchio will have six months following his release from custody to pay the victim fine surcharge.

Released: April 17, 2018

Signed: Justice D.A. Harris