Ontario Court of Justice

Citation: R. v. Ricketts, 2021 ONCJ 404

Date: 2021-07-28

Court File No.: BRAMPTON 18-11792-02, 19-6794-00, 20-11442

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Telique Ricketts

Before: Justice K.L. McLeod

Heard on: December 16, 2020 and July 12, 2021

Oral Reasons for Judgment released on: July 19, 2021

Written Reasons for Judgment released on: July 28, 2021

Counsel:

Nazampal Jaswal, counsel for the Crown

Tonya Kent, counsel for the defendant Telique Ricketts

Reasons for Judgment

K.L. McLeod J.:

[1] Mr. Ricketts is here to receive sentence on three separate charges:

(1) a weapons dangerous charge from September 28th, 2018, for which there is a joint submission of a conditional discharge with probation;

(2) a separate charge of robbery from April 9, 2019; and

(3) a breach of his term of bail: being out without a surety and not for specified purposes for this offence.

For (2) and (3), the Crown seeks a significant period of incarceration, the Defence either a conditional sentence or a short period of incarceration.

Circumstances of the Offences:

[2] The admitted facts on the weapons dangerous were that police were contacted on September 28, 2018 about two people wearing masks (this was before the Pandemic was a household name) looking into stores. The two were arrested and Mr. Ricketts was found in possession of a fake, but realistic looking gun. His co-accused, who was not named, also apparently had a fake weapon.

[3] The robbery and breach charges are different: 6 months after being placed on bail for the weapons offence, Mr. Ricketts alongside another person, went into a Freedom Mobile Store at 5700 Mavis Road in Mississauga. They had a knife and ordered an employee and a customer to lie on the ground and another employee into the safe room where he was ordered to open the safe. Mr. Ricketts and his accomplice loaded stolen items into a duffel bag and fled. Fortunately, there was a GPS tracking device in the stolen goods and the police found both accused in the car shortly thereafter along with the stolen items.

[4] Mr. Ricketts was also charged with the obvious breach of his weapons dangerous bail.

The Circumstances of this Offender:

[5] Mr. Ricketts is now 21 years old: he was 18 years and 9 months old when charged with the weapons dangerous and 19 years and 3 months old when he committed the robbery and the breach.

[6] He has no record.

[7] He is the only child of his single mother Sonja Ricketts. Telique was 10 years old when he first met his birth father, who plays no role in his life. He has been fortunate, however, to have Sonja's sister and their parents who have played a formative and supportive role in Telique’ s life. I received two extraordinary letters from Sonja and her sister Sonya Campbell, to which I will refer shortly.

[8] Telique graduated high school in 2020, while on bail for these charges, and he aspires to become an architect. He has help: his grandfather who attended both the sentencing and the judgment hearing, is an architect and is teaching Telique some of the skills and knowledge he requires to understand and that are necessary for that profession.

[9] Mr. Ricketts has been on bail since his charges in September of 2018. He has two sureties: his mother and his aunt. He was on the following restrictive terms:

• to reside with one of his sureties and abide by their rules; and
• to remain in his residence at all times except for medical emergencies, while with one of his sureties and while at school, although he had to travel to and from with one of his sureties; this bail was signed after 7 days in pretrial custody.

[10] Unfortunately, a new fail to comply charge led to Mr. Ricketts being reincarcerated on the 25th of May of this year approximately 19 months after his release. For this offence he was held in custody for 15 days. I am informed that the synopsis of this arrest recites Mr. Ricketts being stopped in a car alone at midnight. I am also told that the same synopsis states “through investigation" the officers determined Mr. Ricketts was driving to get food. While synopses are allegations, anyone working in the criminal justice system is aware that they contain salient facts from the officers which often reveal the best prosecutorial case scenario.

[11] While the presumption of innocence continues to cloak Mr. Ricketts on this charge, and any allegation of breach of his bail terms is serious especially in a case where the outstanding charge is robbery, having said that, It would be an understatement for me to opine that I have heard much more serious allegations of a breach of bail than this.

[12] In 2018 and through 2019 Mr. Ricketts went back to his Catholic School and enrolled in the Jean Vanier Advantage Programme. He is described by his teacher Tyrone Bonas in the following way:

He has been a welcome addition to our school community, acting as a beacon of hope and positivity to both our staff and students. He has been a model student in terms of effort, attendance and participation in class discussions....: In the past Telique struggled with regularly attending classes, which delayed his progression through high school and threatened to derail his ambitions to study architecture and business in college...He has turned over a new leaf. He now has nearly perfect attendance, submits quality assignments and even sacrifices his own time in class to help his less dedicated classmates with everything from understanding complex concepts to simply improve their mood with a lighthearted and well-timed joke.

[13] Mr. Bonas concludes his letter in this way: “If any student of mine is deserving of a second chance, it is surely one like Telique, a charismatic gracious and hard-working young man with ambition to better himself and his community.” As I have indicated earlier, Mr. Ricketts graduated from High School in June of 2020.

[14] Mr. Bonas also speaks in his letter of Mr. Ricketts’ embrace of his religion and of his belief in God. A letter from Sadica Porter of Glad Tidings Tabernacle attested to his community work during the summer of 2019 when he helped out in the daycare, kitchen, Sunday school and service.

[15] The author of the letter knows full well of the charges Mr. Ricketts faced. She wrote that she believes "he is changed from whoever he was becoming". She also recounted this: “I asked him if I write this letter and everything goes good will he make me look stupid and go mess up again. His reply brought tears to my eyes, he said: I saw my mother cry sitting behind a glass, and she is my best friend and I wouldn’t want to do that to my mom again.”

[16] I now want to turn to the events of Mr. Ricketts life which Ms. Kent, on his behalf, submits have led to his brief foray as a young adult into the world of serious criminality. Ms. Kent’s submissions as to her client’s background are also supported by the letters of support to which I have already briefly referred.

[17] Sonja Ricketts was 14 years old when she found herself to be pregnant; she was 15 when she gave birth to her only son. She has never married. Her parents and sister were supportive of her predicament and welcomed this baby into the household. Sonja was a teenager and, like most teenagers, despite having a child, she acted like a teenager, so much so that that when Mr. Ricketts was four, they ended up living in a shelter as Ms. Ricketts was not following her mother's rules. I am told that through that experience, she grew up.

[18] Mr. Ricketts has always lived with his mother. His birth father is not a presence, although Mr. Ricketts is aware of his half siblings and speaks to them. The father is described as "useless".

[19] Ms. Ricketts has a criminal record from her younger years, and thus had always been unable to find lucrative employment and has struggled although she has always had the support of her family and has devoted her life to her only child, who describes his mother as his best friend. Ms. Ricketts has more recently set up her own hairdressing business, which of course was impacted by the lockdown, but is now back up and busy.

[20] Mr. Ricketts did not do well initially in school, he switched school a few times but was apparently just not interested in learning. In order to help her son's attendance and participation in everything, Ms. Ricketts pushed him into football. When Mr. Ricketts found football, he found a reason to go to school starting in Grades 7 and 8.

[21] When he entered High School: Mr. Ricketts played football well as a running back and his grades become good. Mr. Ricketts apparently saw football as a way to get out of the lifestyle of limitation of prospects that he had endured with his mother because of her criminal record. He is not alone in that ambition, especially for a young black male.

[22] Sadly, during a formative part of this evolution in Mr. Ricketts’ life, his grandmother died after a short battle with cancer. She is described as the matriarch of the family and the one who really raised Mr. Ricketts. Sonya Campbell says that Mr. Ricketts wanted to be the man of the family and held his hurt in check. He was never disrespectful at school or at home and there were never any problems.

[23] While at High School Mr. Ricketts was being recruited for US Schools and had three who were interested in him for their NCAA football programme, they were Division 1 schools, one of which was Penn State. There was ambition and real prospects. Sadly, like so many athletes, he got injured in his Grade 12 year, he tore his ACL which put him out for the season. The school opportunities dried up except Penn State where the coach monitored his progress and stayed interested. Sadly, that stopped when Mr. Ricketts was first arrested in 2018.

[24] Ms. Campbell describes how her nephew, between the ages of 18 and 19, tried to fit in, be cool. He met and followed the wrong crowd and made bad decisions.

[25] In 2019, Mr Ricketts was not a high school graduate, his dreams of school and football and a future in which he saw himself being able to provide for his mother and succeed, had died. Thus, the wrong crowd and then the robbery, but fortunately he has woken up, embraced the support of his mother and once again has ambition.

[26] His aunt says that Mr. Ricketts understands what the decision to commit a robbery has taken from him: the dreams of football camps, although he now does play football again.

[27] She says the following: “I am asking the court today to hear and pleas and do not allow us to lose our young son due stupid decisions”. She goes on: “we cry daily at the thought that we could lose him to the system because we know how the system can change a young man. Today I ask for your help in not allowing my nephew to be another statistic." Ms. Ricketts also asks that her son not become that statistic.

[28] What this use of “statistic” means is this: Mr. Ricketts is a young black man: the jails are full of young black men who do not have the support that Mr. Ricketts does. They are “the statistic” to which Ms. Ricketts and Ms. Campbell refer who are so changed by the system because of incarceration and whose life chances disappear.

[29] I asked Mr. Ricketts on the sentencing hearing about his time in jail: he describes being surprised at there being essentially two types that he encountered - there were apparently peer-aged young men who considered a 6-month sentence to be a "so what" - my words not his - and then people like him who vowed to be different.

[30] Mr. Ricketts has remorse; he says he regrets his actions every day; he didn't mean to cause trauma to the people in the store and assures everyone he is not the same person who made mistakes in the past.

Principles of sentencing:

[31] I will turn to the fundamental principle of sentencing: that is found in Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. It states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[32] There is no doubt that this robbery of a significant amount of technology (over $22000), while terrifying three people, is a very serious offence. Fortunately, while I must infer the psychological harm, there is no evidence of actual harm to the victims.

[33] I will turn to the degree of responsibility of the offender and to the principal objectives of sentencing.

[34] In most robbery cases the objectives that take priority are general deterrence and denunciation. Specific deterrence, while important, takes a lesser role. However, this is a sentencing of a young man who, until this offence, had no record.

[35] Because he is a first-time offender who is very young, other principled objectives must also factor into the ultimate sentence and will limit the quantum of sentence: those are restraint and rehabilitation. A first-time offender who is youthful must not receive a sentence that would be crushing. See R. v. Priest, 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 30 OR (3d) 538.

[36] That decision of the Court of Appeal also reminds a sentencing judge of Sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Section 718(c) reminds judges that separation of offenders from society is an appropriate objective of sentencing "where necessary" and in subsection (d) that an offender should not be deprived of liberty "if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”.

[37] Furthermore, the court stated: “The duty to explore other dispositions for a first offender before imposing a custodial sentence is not an empty formalism which can be invoking the objective of general deterrence. It must be clear from the record of the proceedings, preferably why the circumstances of this offender must receive a sentence of imprisonment”.

[38] While the Crown's position is one that recognizes the seriousness of this offence and urges emphasis on the aggravating factors of this young man's crimes, she submits that Mr. Ricketts’ background does not clearly explain why he would resort to such an offence and that is concerning. It is my obligation to balance both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of these offences and find a "just sanction". (See Section 718 of the Criminal Code.)

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:

[39] These are the aggravating factors:

1. This was a violent offence: this offender brought a knife to frighten and rob the personnel in a store, without regard to who was in there at the time.
2. He wore a mask.
3. He was on a release to his supportive aunt and mother, which he was clearly defying including jeopardizing the bail monies.

[40] These are the mitigating factors:

1. He is a youthful first offender.
2. He has pleaded guilty and is obviously insightful as to the suffering of his victims and remorseful.
3. This is considered an early plea. While a lot of time has elapsed since this offence, I had pre-tried this in 2019 and at that time resolution was discussed, but the Pandemic took over. Indeed, the sentencing hearing was delayed again because of the shutdown that occurred in the late winter of this year. He was meant to receive his sentence on May 17th, 7 days before he was charged with his second breach. Prior to that date I contacted counsel and suggested the sentencing be put over until the jails were safer and the vaccine widely available.
4. Mr. Ricketts has been under house arrest for 2 years when he has not been permitted even to go for a walk with a friend.
5. Mr. Ricketts has a supportive and strong family all of whom attended the court proceedings.
6. The circumstances of his offending came at a time of great flux in this young man’s life, the life chances he considered an imperative had disappeared and there is no doubt that his dreams were dashed, his choices of a bright lucrative future were dashed and a low paying job which would not help his mother. That was his reality as he thought.
7. He sees things differently now, he has matured, he has a goal. He has spent more time in jail and appears to know who and what he does not want for his life.

[41] Sentencing is an individualized process and one in which I must consider all sanctions that are open to me in determining a fit sentence. Ms. Kent argues that given the decision of R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478, I am now permitted to consider a conditional sentence. In R. v. Gray, 2021 ONCA 626, the Court of Appeal agrees that given that court’s ruling in Sharma, a conditional sentence is available if considered appropriate.

[42] In R. v. Gray, the Ontario Court of Appeal was considering the appropriateness of a 6-month jail sentence plus probation for an offender who committed a bank robbery. The offender was an aboriginal offender who had, since the commission of the offence, made considerable strides in addressing addiction and creating a work history. While the Court upheld the 6-month sentence, it stayed the remaining 5 months and 3 days of custody given the evidence that since being released on bail pending appeal the appellant had been living a prosocial and positive life. The Court determined: “reincarcerating the appellant at this stage would serve no societal interest and is unnecessary to achieve the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence”.

[43] Ms. Kent provided a number of cases in which sentences of less than 6 months of jail have been imposed for serious offences. Clearly, until very recently (the aforementioned decision in Sharma), persons convicted of robbery have not been able to access the conditional sentence regime.

Conclusion:

[44] I have determined that Mr. Ricketts was on a house arrest term, albeit with some very limited exceptions which did not include the kinds of activities most young men wish to indulge in – pandemic or not – from the 15th April 2019 until his arrest on the new fail to comply the 25th of May 2021; a period of 25 months. I am prepared to attribute 5 months of pretrial custody to his house arrest pursuant to R. v. Downes, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 555.

[45] Furthermore, I have concluded that but for Mr. Ricketts’ young age and his lack of previous record, a conditional sentence would not be appropriate for this serious offence given the pressing nature of general deterrence. However, he falls within the small bracket whereby specific deterrence and rehabilitative chances must also be seriously considered. Additionally, Mr. Ricketts’ prosocial actions and the support he has speak volumes to the great potential of his future chance of "not becoming a statistic". He has exhibited that he can follow the rules and flourish. Frankly the fact that he offended by going out at midnight in breach of his bail merely to buy food because he was hungry once in 2 years allows me to find that he is not a danger to the community.

[46] Therefore, the sentence will be as follows.

[47] On the charge of weapons dangerous from 2018, there will be a conditional discharge with 1 year of probation during which time:

• He will keep the peace;
• Report to probation;
• Perform 50 hours of Community Service;
• Take such counselling as directed; and
• Have no contact with Jacob Jiminez directly or indirectly.

[48] With respect to the charge of robbery, there will be a sentence of 5 months deemed time served plus a conditional sentence of 6 months during which:

• for the first two months he will be under a house arrest except for complying with the terms of this or his probation terms for attending interviews for work or school, attending work or school, for travelling to and from performing volunteer hours as ordered by his probation for travelling to and from and attending football training with the Brampton Bull dogs, for medical appointments for himself and medical emergencies for himself or any member of his immediate family and for attending Glad Tidings Tabernacle in the company of his mother on Sundays.
• the next two months he will observe a curfew of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. except work, school, medical emergencies or if in company of aunt or mother.
• for the remaining 2 months statutory terms only will apply.

[49] For the entirety of his conditional sentence, he is to take counselling as directed is deemed appropriate by his probation officer in consultation with his mother.

[50] This sentence will be concurrent with his probation on the weapons dangerous.

[51] For the breach of release order there will be a sentence of 7 days of deemed time served.

[52] There will be a s. 109 order and a DNA order.

[53] The victim fine surcharge is waived where it was in force, given Mr. Ricketts’ financial circumstances.

[54] In concluding I note that Mr. Ricketts remains on the house arrest terms on the second breach of his bail. I encourage that charge be dealt with as soon as possible to allow for the rehabilitative part of this sentence to take effect.

Released orally: July 19, 2021

Reasons for Judgment released in writing: July 28, 2021

Signed: Justice K.L. McLeod