Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2018-11-09 Court File No.: Newmarket 18-02058
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— AND —
Ryan Reesor
Reasons for Sentence
Submissions and Sentence: November 9, 2018
Ms. Michelle Rumble ......................................................... counsel for the Crown
Ms. Eleanor Shaw ............................................................ counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
1. Introduction
[1] Mr. Reesor waited until his son had gone to school, then he entered his former spouse's home unannounced and went to her bedroom. He pulled out a sawed-off shotgun and tried to take her phone. He told her that he'd come to kill either a male friend of hers or an ex-boyfriend from four years prior. She had to take him to their workplace so he could accomplish his plan or she herself would be killed. The victim showed remarkable bravery. She struggled and was able to get Mr. Reesor out of her bedroom but he smashed-in the door with the shotgun. There was a further struggle and Mr. Reesor took tape he'd brought to try and bind the victim. Eventually she ended up at the foot of the stairs. Mr. Reesor pointed the shotgun at her temple. When she still refused to take him to murder one of the two men he slid the action on the shotgun causing a shell to eject showing her it was fully loaded. Remarkably, the victim still refused to help him. He finally abandoned his plan to shoot her and left the house.
[2] But for the bravery of the victim the incident likely would have resulted in the shooting of one or both of the men Mr. Reesor intended to kill. She didn't want a part in their deaths and she took a chance that Mr. Reesor would not be able to pull the trigger to kill her. She's very lucky that at the last instant she was right. Mr. Reesor was convicted of 15 offences arising out of that incident and the circumstances of the discovery of the sawed-off shotgun at his farm after his arrest.
The Rule Regarding Multiple Convictions
[3] The rule in R v Kienapple, [1974] SCJ No 76 precludes multiple convictions for the same wrongful act. The multiple convictions in this case reflect in part the prolonged circumstances of the central incident and the fact that further charges relate to the next day when the accused was arrested. I agree with both parties though that counts 3, 7 and 12 should be stayed. I've considered the defence request to stay count 6 but different facts give rise to the findings on each count so the rule in Kienapple is not engaged.
The Submissions of Counsel
[4] The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of 6-7 years. The Crown submits that deterrence both specific and general and denunciation are the most important factors on sentence along with protection of the victim and her family. Rehabilitation plays a lesser role given the gravity of the offence. The circumstances of the offences, the serious threat posed to the safety of the victim and the community and the effect of the offences on the victim all require a significant sentence in the range submitted.
[5] The defence submits that a sentence of 38 months in addition to pre-trial custody would result in a two year sentence after consideration of time served. That sentence would be a significant sentence for a person with only one unrelated conviction, for an incident that was out of character where no significant physical injury was caused. It would provide for rehabilitation and yet still meet the need for deterrence.
Aggravating Circumstances
[6] The aggravating circumstances in this case include:
The fact that the victim was a former domestic partner – s.718.2(a)(ii.1).
Although there were no prior related convictions, the evidence at trial including text messages showed a prior history of harassing and threatening behaviour in relation to the complainant's contact with other men. That didn't end until Mr. Reesor was warned by the police to stop.
The accused abused the access given to him for shared child care to enter the victim's home. He entered unannounced and uninvited in order to commit these offences.
The fact that the offences occurred in the victim's home including her bedroom as the home is meant to be a place of safety.
The fact that the accused used the shotgun to break down the door after the complainant tried to lock him out of her room.
The offence was prolonged, well past the initial confrontation with struggles in her bedroom, the hallway and finally the landing downstairs by the door where the shotgun was pointed at her head and she was threatened with death.
The accused went to the house with a view to compelling the victim to take him to two other men so he could kill them and then kill himself. That intent to kill where the accused specifically armed himself with a loaded firearm for that purpose is a significant aggravating factor on certain counts and shows the gravity of the offences overall.
The fact that the shotgun was sawed off shows prior planning. Mr. Reesor not only had to transport the weapon to the victim's home but he also planned to take the weapon into the workplace of the men he intended to kill. While the defence is correct that the shotgun was not cut as short as it might have been, the cutting of the barrel removed the choke. That's significant as the expert firearm evidence in this case indicated that the choke restricts the pattern of shot for the hunting of small game. If a person wanted to kill a large animal such as a deer or a person with a shotgun a slug shot would be used. Use of a slug shot requires removal of the choke. The circumstances including the presence of slug shot ammunition shows this shotgun was sawed-off for that purpose. The planning and preparation to kill is a significant aggravating factor.
The use of a loaded shotgun distinguishes this case from others where unloaded firearms were used simply to threaten.
Pointing the shotgun right at the victim's temple was done to terrorize her and is a significant aggravating factor.
To try and compel the victim to take him to his intended victims, Mr. Reesor engaged the action of the shotgun causing a live round to be ejected. It's likely the victim thought she was about to die when she heard those sounds. She still did not comply. That further action, done solely to terrorize the victim is a significant aggravating factor.
The complainant was not able to complete a Victim Impact Statement. She told the Crown that it was too upsetting. Her evidence at trial though shows she reasonably thought she was going to die that day and the offences have had a significant psychological impact on her. There was some physical harm as well although I agree with the defence it was minor.
Mitigating Circumstances
[7] There are several mitigating factors:
Mr. Reesor has been in custody since February 5, 2018. That's 278 days or just over 9 months. I agree with the defence that it's appropriate to apply R v Summers 2014 SCC 26 which results in 417 days which can reasonably be rounded up to 14 months credit.
Mr. Reesor is a good father. The victim acknowledged that he was good with the children and he took an active role in child support and child care. That's why she let him back into her life to the point where he was trusted enough to have the access codes to her house. She was very happy they were able to co-parent on that basis but Mr. Reesor abandoned that in an extreme rage after finding an older man sleeping on her couch after the Super Bowl game.
Mr. Reesor enjoys the support of his own family and friends in the community. They see this act as out of character.
Mr. Reesor has worked in the past and has the prospect of work in the future.
Mr. Reesor appears willing to take drug counselling and treatment to address his issues with opiates, cocaine, alcohol and prescription drugs.
I accept Mr. Reesor's statement of remorse at the time of sentence as genuine. It's true that remorse and insight were not much evident in the pre-sentence report, but I am mindful that Mr. Reesor took a different position at trial and he's not to be punished for maintaining that position during the preparation of the report.
Range of Sentence
[8] While I appreciate that offences involving physical domestic violence do not necessarily result in the range of sentence proposed by the Crown, I find that the cases submitted by the defence which do not involved firearms or the further aggravating features found here provide little assistance.
[9] Cases involving threats with a shotgun result in penitentiary sentences closer to the range identified by the Crown – R v Boudreau 2018 NBCA 14 (Guilty plea – 4 years where shotgun unloaded but with ammunition in pocket), R v McIntosh 2016 ONCA 370 (9 years after trial where significant record), R v Shears [2008] OJ No 4897 (SCJ) (5.5 years where the accused did not know the firearm was loaded), R v Schneider 2017 ONCJ 444 (Guilty Plea – 6 years for similar incident except gun not loaded).
[10] General deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation are the most important factors on sentence along with the protection of the victim and her children. The rehabilitation of Mr. Reesor is also an objective of sentence, but given the circumstances of these offences I find it must play a lesser role.
[11] While the mitigating factors in this case are relevant and important and Mr. Reesor has never engaged in an act of violence like this before, he has a history of trying to exercise control over his former spouse with regard to her contact with other men, even years after their breakup. The rage he exhibited without reason in this case almost led to death of the complainant. Only her bravery prevented the shooting of the men Mr. Reesor was trying to kill. While in the end he could not pull the trigger on the mother of his children, the whole of the evidence shows he would not likely have felt the same reluctance in relation to the men he targeted.
[12] I find the least restrictive sentence that would be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the responsibility of Mr. Reesor in this case is a sentence of 7 years.
Sentence
[13] Mr. Reesor is sentenced to a global sentence of 7 years less credit for pre-trial custody of 14 months. Seven years is 84 months, less 14 months leaves 70 months imprisonment to be served.
[14] Imprisonment to be apportioned as follows:
- Count 1 – 70 months
- Count 2 – 12 months concurrent
- Count 4 – 36 months concurrent
- Count 5 – 36 months concurrent
- Count 6 – 36 months concurrent
- Count 8 – 24 months concurrent
- Count 9 – 36 months concurrent
- Count 10 – 24 months concurrent
- Count 11 – 60 months concurrent
- Count 13 – 24 months concurrent
- Count 14 – 36 months concurrent
- Count 15 – 36 months concurrent
[15] In addition it is necessary to prohibit Mr. Reesor from possessing any firearms or related items set out in s.109 of the Criminal Code for life. Several of these counts are primary compulsory offences. For every offence where a DNA order is applicable I order that Mr. Reesor provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.
[16] Mr. Reesor is to have no contact with all three victims while he is in custody – s.743.21. The firearm, weapons and ammunition seized are forfeited to the Crown pursuant to s.491 of the Criminal Code. Finally, there is a mandatory victim fine surcharge and Mr. Reesor will have 10 years from today's date to pay that amount.
Delivered: November 9, 2018
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel