Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2022 09 02 Central East Region: Oshawa Courthouse
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
NICHOLAS COFFIN
Before: Justice Peter C. West
Guilty Pleas Entered: June 20, 2022 Sentencing Submissions Heard on: August 10, 2022 Reasons for Sentence dated: September 2, 2022
Counsel: Mr. N. Hegedus.............................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. C. Amodeo............................... counsel for the defendant Nicholas Coffin
WEST J.
[1] On November 24, 2021, Nicholas Coffin attended at four different residences of some of his family members and a friend and set their motor vehicles on fire. Those vehicles were parked in the driveways and garages of these houses. On June 20, 2022, he pleaded guilty to four counts of Arson, endangering life and one count of possession of incendiary material. An Agreed Statement of Facts, Exhibit 1, was filed with photographs depicting the damages to those vehicles, as well as damages to two of the houses where those vehicles were parked and one neighbouring house. A finding of guilt was entered and a pre-sentence report was ordered, which has been prepared and is marked as Exhibit 4.
[2] The first fire was set at 3:31 a.m., at 37 Mitchell Avenue, Stouffville, the home of Sheryl Coffin, who is Nicholas Coffin’s mother, and her husband, William Carruthers. The source of the fire were their vehicles, a 2007 Honda Odyssey and 2006 Odyssey, which were parked in the driveway and the fire spread to the home. The second fire was set at 81 Squires Bakers Lane, Markham, at 3:58 a.m., at the home of Chris Lavender and his parents. The two motor vehicles owned by Mr. Lavender’s parents, a 2015 Mazda and 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe, were parked in the driveway and destroyed by fire, as well as Chris Lavender’s car, a 2006 Mazda, which was parked in the garage. Mr. Lavender was a friend of Nicholas Coffin. This fire also spread to the home because of the fires set.
[3] Later that same earlier morning starting around 4:30 a.m., two more fires were set by Nicholas Coffin at 61 Wilshire Drive, Whitby, the residence of Adam Coffin and is wife and two children (ages 3 & 9). Adam Coffin is Nicholas Coffin’s brother. A 2008 Nissan Rogue was damaged by fire as well as the front of the house, from the extreme heat from the fire. The children’s bedroom is above the garage. The family was able to exit the residence without injury.
[4] The next fire was set by Nicholas Coffin at his brother-in-law, Thomas Taylor’s residence at 128 Nearna Drive, Oshawa, where a 2014 Honda Pilot was set on fire and destroyed. Mr. Taylor’s two sons (age 8 and 11 were awakened by an explosion and the flames lighting up their room, which overlooked the driveway. The fire spread to the house as well as the neighbouring house at 124 Nearna Drive.
[5] An inference available from the facts is that Mr. Coffin set each fire and immediately moved onto the next address where he set the next fire. In my view this demonstrates an indifference and callowness on Mr. Coffin’s part in that he set the fire without any regard to what the consequences might be.
[6] Nicholas Coffin was located by Durham Regional Police at Bowmanville Cemetery in an Orange Toyota Matrix, where 3 gasoline canisters, 8 propane tanks and a propane torch were located and seized incident to arrest.
Position of the Parties
[7] The Crown’s position on sentence was for a six (6) year global sentence concurrent on all charges. A D.N.A. order, a s. 109 weapon’s prohibition for 10 years and a s. 743.21 order were sought. The Crown points to the serious aggravating circumstances surrounding these arson offences involving four residences and vehicles in the early morning when the occupants were asleep. The offences were planned, deliberate, not a spur of the moment incident and the accused intended to harm the victims by causing serious property damage. The offences involved a high degree of moral blameworthiness. The Crown submitted there was an incredible risk of either killing or seriously injuring the individuals whose vehicles and houses were damaged by fire.
[8] Mr. Amodeo submitted the appropriate sentence was a penitentiary sentence of four to five years. He does not dispute the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. He provided a lockdown report from Central East Correctional Centre, which reflected over 117 days of lockdown, caused by staff shortages and COVID circumstances, Exhibit 5. Mr. Amodeo also provided a reference email from Dorilyn Cooper, Nicholas Coffin’s aunt, Exhibit 6.
[9] I received numerous Victim Impact Statements (VIS) from Sheryl Coffin; Brittany Coffin and Adam Coffin; Natalie Taylor, wife of Nicholas Coffin; Stella Taylor, daughter of Nicholas Coffin (written by Natalie Taylor); Thomas Taylor, brother-in-law of Nicholas Coffin; and Barry and Nancy Lavender, their son Chris Lavender was a friend of Nicholas Coffin, marked as Exhibit 2. As well I received one separate VIS from William Carruthers, Exhibit 3.
[10] Mr. Coffin has been in pre-trial custody since the day of his arrest, November 24, 2021, to today’s date, September 2, 2022, for a total of 283 days. On a 1.5 to 1.0 basis this translates to 425 days of credit or the equivalent of 1 year and 2 months. Mr. Amodeo seeks further consideration for the collateral consequence of unduly harsh circumstances of incarceration caused by repeated lockdowns in the correctional facility, otherwise referred to as Duncan credit and the consequences created as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Of course, recent decisions have made it very clear that the fundamental principle in determining any reduction of a sentence because of collateral consequences must not result in a sentence that is disproportionately lenient or drastically outside the appropriate sentencing range. In R. v. Morgan, at paras. 8-11, the Ontario Court of Appeal had this to say about the impact of COVID-19 on time spent in pre-trial custody and whether enhanced credit was appropriate in the context of a particular sentence:
8 In our view, it is not necessary to decide whether this court could take judicial notice of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to the extent to which the appellant would have us do that. We do, however, believe that it falls within the accepted bounds of judicial notice for us to take into account the fact of the COVID-19 pandemic, its impact on Canadians generally, and the current state of medical knowledge of the virus, including its mode of transmission and recommended methods to avoid its transmission.
9 In our view, the appellant's submissions fall into the category of collateral consequences for sentencing purposes. As Moldaver J. noted in R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at para. 48:
The question is not whether collateral consequences diminish the offender's moral blameworthiness or render the offence itself less serious, but whether the effect of those consequences means that a particular sentence would have a more significant impact on the offender because of his or her circumstances.
10 However, Moldaver J. went on to make a further observation in Suter that has direct application to the case here. He said, at para. 56:
I agree with the Court of Appeal that the fundamental principle of proportionality must prevail in every case - collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
11 In our view, the sentence imposed on the appellant was at the very low end of an acceptable range of sentence for the offence of aggravated assault. It was, indeed, a lenient sentence, given the injuries sustained by the victim and the fact that the appellant had a criminal record. To reduce the sentence any further would result in a sentence that is unfit, one that would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. As was observed by Wagner J. in R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at para. 18:
It follows that where a sentence is varied to avoid collateral consequences, the further the varied sentence is from the range of otherwise appropriate sentences, the less likely it is that it will remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
See also R. v. Marshall, at paras. 50-53; and R. v. Lariviere, at paras. 16-17.
[11] Mr. Amodeo did not refer to a specific number of days as a further reduction of sentence pursuant to Duncan but submitted I should consider the lockdown report from CECC, as well as the knowledge that CECC has experienced an increase in lockdowns because of a number of outbreaks of COVID-19 in that facility. The lockdown report from CECC, Exhibit 5, reflects that Mr. Coffin experienced 117 days of lockdown greater than 6 hours (in reality these lockdowns were 10 hours) and 3 lockdowns less than 6 hours. In addition, as a safety precaution, I am aware the custodial facilities impose a 14 day quarantine when an individual is first incarcerated at CECC to ensure they do not have COVID.
Victim Impact Statements
[12] Many of the victims of Mr. Coffin’s criminal conduct were present in court during this sentencing hearing. The Victim Impact Statements described the horror of being awakened by explosions and fires set by Mr. Coffin. Luckily none of those individuals victimized by Nicholas Coffin were injured physically by the fires, however, it is clear from the VISs that all of them have suffered considerably emotionally, financially and from health concerns brought on as a direct result of the trauma they experienced. Further, they have all suffered from sleeplessness and severe anxiety over concerns that Nicholas Coffin will do something more serious to them upon his release from custody. Many of the victims believed Nicholas Coffin’s intention was to not only burn their vehicles but also the houses they were sleeping in and they expressed their fear he would return to finish what he started.
[13] All of the victims have suffered significant financial loss attributable to the damage to their vehicles and homes. In addition, many have sought counselling to assist in overcoming their fear and anxiety and this has also created financial costs. Many of the victims have been unable to work because of health issues directly related to the stress caused by Nicholas Coffin’s actions.
[14] All of the victims were connected to Nicholas Coffin either as family members or friends, which increases the significant horror each of them described and experienced. The victims cannot understand the motivations behind Mr. Coffin’s criminal behaviour.
[15] The children who were in the homes where the vehicles were set on fire also continue to experience fear and anxiety and sleeplessness. Nicholas Coffin’s actions have greatly impacted these children who were in the houses, with bedrooms above the garage the vehicles were parked in front of, by causing them to be fearful, preventing them to engage in sports and activities with friends. What is truly unimaginable is that Mr. Coffin would create the incredible risk to children who were his niece and nephews.
[16] The Criminal Code provides that where there is evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victims, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation, this shall be deemed an aggravating circumstance, s. 718.2 (a)(iii.1). The devastation caused to each of the families impacted by Nicholas Coffin’s criminal behaviour is heartbreaking and tragic. His actions were towards family members and friends and are in many respects unforgiveable. The fact these offences were committed in respect of family members is also an aggravating circumstance under s. 718.2(a)(ii).
[17] The Victim Impact Statements were poignant and extremely distressing, particularly having regard to the long-lasting consequences created by Nicholas Coffin’s actions.
Circumstances of the Offender
[18] Nicholas Coffin was 40 years old when he committed the offences he pleaded guilty to. He does not have a criminal record. He is the oldest of two sons. His father died 12 years ago from pancreatic cancer. His mother and father divorced when he was four and his mother is remarried for over 25 years. Nicholas Coffin told the probation officer he considers his stepfather to be his father. He also advised he was close to his younger brother Adam, prior to committing the offences.
[19] The accused is married with a five year old daughter. He began dating Natalie Taylor after completing high school. She ran a flower shop and he was her delivery driver. His wife was the breadwinner in their family. Nicholas Coffin and his wife were separated at the time of the offences. There is a separation agreement and Mr. Coffin signed off on the ownership of the matrimonial home in September 2021. From the information in the PSR there appears to be a dispute between Mr. Coffin and Ms. Taylor as to what Mr. Coffin was to receive when the matrimonial home was sold (Initially a $37,000 amount was paid to him and then $2000 per month until the total reached $140,000. He indicated in the PSR he has only received $41,000). Mr. Coffin agreed to pay a small amount towards child support, $280.00 per month; however, since Mr. Coffin has been in custody he has not paid any child support and is in arrears for 8 months. He indicates his wife has not paid him the $2000.00 per month re the matrimonial home since his charges were laid. I do not intend to resolve that issue, however, it would also appear that the breakdown in his marriage created difficulties for Mr. Coffin.
[20] According to Mr. Coffin’s mother and his wife, the Children’s Protection Agency was called in June 2021, as well as the police, as a result of Mr. Coffin attending his wife’s place of employment brandishing Taekwondo fighting sticks and yelling he wanted a divorce and his money. Apparently Mr. Coffin was not charged because there was no violence but he was formed by his doctor.
[21] Ms. Taylor asserted that Mr. Coffin spent the first amount of money he received from her from the sale of the house ($37,000) on drugs and guitars. Mr. Coffin was supposed to move out of the matrimonial home but did not, and as a result Ms. Taylor changed all the locks. She allowed his brother Adam to remove Nicholas’ belongings and all of these items were put in a storage locker but apparently the monthly fee was not paid after 90 days because Mr. Coffin was in custody and his belongings were sold. Similarly, his motor vehicle was impounded and because he was in custody and the impound fees were mounting, the car was ultimately sold to pay those fees.
[22] Adam Coffin told the probation officer that Nicholas’ family had no knowledge of the difficulties between he and Ms. Taylor. When Nicholas’ family found out about the separation they tried to assist by providing him the name of a lawyer and told him they would assist him financially but he refused their help.
[23] Mr. Coffin was unemployed prior to committing the offences before the court. He did not complete Grade 13 in high school. He attended a 6-month course in a Trade School and became a certified welder. He worked in that field for six years but allowed his welding certificate to lapse. He has worked in a variety of jobs, including as an Irrigation Technician for three years, he did data entry for his wife’s father for three years, he was a flower delivery person for five years and for three years he worked as a uniform service provider. His dream job is to become a YouTube rock star as a rapper and he has shared this with his family members, who believe he is delusional respecting this.
[24] When Mr. Coffin worked for an Irrigation company he had an accident and was put on pain medication and the PSR indicated he became addicted. He went back to school as job training and received his electrician’s certificate but could not get a placement because of COVID. Mr. Coffin denies still being addicted to pain medication. He is a regular daily user of marijuana, smoking a ½ gram daily in a joint or a bong. He told the probation officer he did not believe his drug use has affected any area of his life, but then admitted it did affect his relationship with his wife and was the main reason for the dissolution of their marriage.
[25] He denied being under the influence of any substance on the night of the offences. Ms. Taylor believes that he had to be on drugs, which she believes was an opioid drug. Members of Mr. Coffin’s family, who were the victims of his criminal behaviour believe he must have been suffering from mental health issues at the time of committing the offences or taking drugs.
[26] Nicholas Coffin told the probation officer he was “angry at his family for turning their back on him while he was going through a divorce and his circumstances of living in his vehicle.” He described being “upset and depressed at how life had turned out” for him. He admitted his actions were stupid, impulsive and idiotic and he did not have a good explanation for his behaviour. He expressed regret for his actions but believed his family let him down, they were not supportive of him despite knowing he was homeless and living in his car. No one offered to take him in or assisted him financially. His family members do not agree with his version of events. They describe him as often being high as a kite when they would call him during the time period before his offences.
[27] Mr. Coffin agrees he has anger management issues but denied any rage (payback) or mental health difficulties on the night of the offences. He advised he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression five years ago but is not currently on any medication. He believed he has done well not be on any medication. The probation officer contacted his family physician, Dr. Subhani Ragunathan, who confirmed Mr. Coffin has been her patient since 2016. She diagnosed him with “generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder” but a more recent psychiatric assessment stated persistent depressive disorder, agoraphobia, substance induced anxiety/psychotic disorder was ruled out and bi-polar or related disorder was also ruled out. The doctor advised she was aware Mr. Coffin is not currently taking any medication.
[28] It should be noted that I was not provided any psychiatric assessments respecting Mr. Coffin and I do not believe the probation officer was provided any psychiatric assessments. Mr. Coffin advised in the PSR that he contemplated suicide in 2018 because of a vehicle accident while working in 2016 but did not act upon this. He attempted to get into Whitby Shores at one point but because of COVID they would only do counselling virtually. Mr. Coffin wanted his wife to purchase him a computer so he could do this but she refused, as he could use her computer, which he refused. His brother, Adam believed he only wanted his own computer so he could become a YouTube rock star. Mr. Coffin’s wife, Ms. Taylor told the probation officer he was tested by two psychiatrists and she is of the opinion “he will hurt someone else the minute he is out.”
[29] His mother confirmed there is a family history for mental illness, which includes depression and bi-polar disorder. His family members believe that Nicholas Coffin was using drugs other than marijuana and there is concern expressed by all that Nicholas Coffin will become angry and do something upon his release from custody. Both Sheryl and Adam Coffin both want to see Nicholas get help with his mental health issues. The PSR makes reference in several places about conflicts and dislikes between Mr. Coffin’s family member towards his wife Natalie Taylor. Mr. Coffin describes his wife as manipulating him mentally and financially and that he has been micromanaged by his family members. He also expressed his belief that his wife’s treatment of him contributed to his anger when he engaged in his criminal actions.
[30] Mr. Coffin told the probation officer that he was not the only one with problems and he was uncertain if he will be able to work things out with his family and his wife. He was not going to spend “the rest of his life apologizing for what happened.” He was not sure if being in jail was enough for everyone. He was willing to seek out programs and counselling to assist himself. Mr. Coffin was adamant that these incidents were “a one-time thing” that he has never been that angry before and there was zero chance of him doing this again. He expressed he believed the charges were an exaggeration as he only lit the cars on fire and it was never his intention that anyone get hurt. “Damage to the homes was from heat and not from open flame.” When the probation officer pointed out that his nieces and nephews were in the homes where he lit the vehicles on fire and some of the neighbours homes were also victimized, he reluctantly agreed.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
[31] Nicholas Coffin pleaded guilty to 4 counts of arson endangering life, which is a significant mitigating circumstance. This demonstrates his acceptance of responsibility for his criminal behaviour and in my view is an expression of his remorse for his actions. Mr. Coffin expressed his remorse and apologies for his conduct when given the opportunity during the sentencing hearing. His guilty pleas also saved a considerable amount of court time and his guilty pleas spared the victims from having to testify at a trial. All of these are mitigating circumstances.
[32] A further mitigating circumstance is that Nicholas Coffin does not have a criminal record and has not had contact with the police previously.
[33] Exhibit 6 is an email written by Mr. Coffin’s aunt, Dorilyn Cooper, who attended the sentencing hearing. Her email makes reference to years of abuse suffered by Nicholas Coffin with no details, and on the evidence before me it would not be possible to make that finding. There is no doubt that Ms. Cooper is supportive of her nephew, who she grew up with, as she is only a few years older than he is. She expressed concerns, as did his mother and brother, that Mr. Coffin needs to address his problems and difficulties.
[34] The Crown points to the two aggravating circumstances I have already commented on earlier in my reasons; namely, the significant and continuing negative impact Mr. Coffin’s actions had on the many victims in this case and the fact that many of the victims were family members of Mr. Coffin and the Lavender family were described as friends of his. These are both statutorily mandated aggravating circumstances set out in s. 718.2(a).
[35] Mr. Coffin committed these offences in relation to family members and his friend and his friend’s parents. It is my view there is an element of trust that was broken by Mr. Coffin given his relationship with each of the victims. In my view this is a further aggravating circumstance to be considered in determining a proportionate sentence.
[36] A common theme in the victim impact statements was how Mr. Coffin’s criminal actions will continue to negatively impact their lives for the foreseeable future. Tragically there were children who were in the houses sleeping as well as their parents and luckily they were awakened by explosions and the incredible heat caused by these fires. They continue to suffer from nightmares, sleepless nights and their parents described them experiencing fear when they hear noises outside their bedrooms. Many of the adults who experienced these events are still seeking counselling to help them deal with the horror of what happened. The majority of the victims of Mr. Coffin’s actions expressed their sincere wish that he will be able to obtain help for his difficulties but they also expressed being afraid and concerned as to what he will do when he is released from custody if he does not obtain that assistance. All of the victims have expressed significant apprehension of whether Mr. Coffin will repeat his criminal behaviour with more horrific results.
[37] An example of the tremendous impact Nicholas Coffin’s actions had on the victims can be seen respecting Mr. Coffin’s brother, Adam, who has developed a very serious heart and thyroid condition as a result of the stress caused by these incidents as reflected in the VIS. The considerable stress has also affected Adam’s wife and she now suffers from a medical condition as well that affects her ability to work. These incidents also resulted in significant financial consequences for their family. The financial consequences of Mr. Coffin’s actions are common to all of the victims. I was not provided a total cost of the property damage caused by the fires set by Mr. Coffin but in my estimation it would be several hundred thousand dollars. This is an aggravating circumstance.
[38] The arson endangering life charges occurred at four separate residences in four separate communities: Stouffville, Markham, Whitby and Oshawa. It is also my view that Mr. Coffin’s criminal behaviour not only directly impacted his family and friends it also would have caused fear and concern on the part of other citizens living in those communities given the extensive damage caused to the motor vehicles and houses. This was referred to by one of the victims that neighbours on his street felt less secure in their homes and many had purchased security cameras as a result. This is an aggravating circumstance.
[39] A further aggravating circumstance was the fact Mr. Coffin’s actions also endangered the lives of the emergency services who responded to the 911 call, in particular the firefighters who had to put out four very serious fires in four separate communities. One of the victims described how the firefighters had advised them that their house, which was beginning to burn would have caught fire in less than five minutes if they had not arrived when they did and stopped it. Fire, by its nature, is unpredictable and uncontrollable once it is unleashed. Apparently Mr. Coffin can be seen on a video pulling up in the vehicle he was operating, getting out, stretching and then throwing a Molotov cocktail into his brother-in-law’s Honda Pilot parked in the driveway in front of the house. His brother-in-law’s sons were awakened in their bedroom above the garage by the explosion and then saw orange from the fire and felt incredible heat from it. The photographs filed as part of the Agreed Statement of Facts show the seriousness of the fires created by Mr. Coffin and the incredible destruction they caused.
[40] Mr. Coffin’s actions were not a spur of the moment decision. They were planned and deliberate actions given his purchase of a number of cans of gasoline and tanks of propane and other incendiary materials, as evidenced from what was found in his motor vehicle when the police located him inside it at the Bowmanville Cemetery. The incidents occurred within a short time span of each other, which also confirms the amount of planning Mr. Coffin engaged in. His actions appear to be motivated by anger and rage on his part towards his family and friends for how his life had turned out, which he was the author of and responsible for. Based on the agreed statement of facts and Mr. Coffin’s comments to the probation officer in the PSR, it is my view that Mr. Coffin intended at the very least to damage and render inoperable the motor vehicles he set on fire or exploded. I find he was reckless and willfully blind as to the fact that by setting these vehicles on fire, given their close proximity to the houses (in the driveways and in two cases in the garage) where he knew the owners and their families were inside sleeping, there was an incredible risk for the loss of life or serious injuring or maiming to the persons who were in those houses in the early morning hours of November 24, 2021. In my view the only reasonable inference flowing from his criminal behaviour is that he intended to cause harm to his victims.
Determining a Proportionate Sentence
[41] In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Coffin, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:
718 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.
[42] 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.
[43] As Rosenberg J.A. held in R. v. Priest, 1996 ONCA 1381:
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.
[44] A sentencing judge must also have regard for s. 718.2, which provides: a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances (s. 718.2(a)(i) – (vi)); a sentence should be similar to other sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b); the combined duration of consecutive sentences not be unduly long (718.2(c)); an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate (s. 718(d)); and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders (s. 718.2(e)).
[45] Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime. The principle of parity under s. 718.2(b), which states a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances is an important and laudable objective but it is important to note that no two cases are exactly alike, and as emphasized by Chief Justice Lamer in R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 SCC 230:
Sentencing is an individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise or academic abstraction. As well, sentences for a particular offence should be expected to vary to some degree across various communities and regions in this country, as the "just and appropriate" mix of accepted sentencing goals will depend on the needs and current conditions of and in the particular community where the crime occurred. ( Emphasis added )
[46] Consequently, a proportionate sentence in each case, in large measure, is determined by the specific and unique facts and circumstances surrounding the offender and the commission of the offence. Although precedents involving similar cases can provide guidance in determining a proportionate sentence they should not dominate the sentencing process. In R. v. Rawn, the Ontario Court of Appeal cautioned that:
[46] It goes without saying that a fit sentence must be ascertained on an individual basis. It is therefore inappropriate to allow the parity principle, a principle that, by definition considers another sentence imposed on another offender, to dominate the determination of a fit sentence.
[47] Sentencing is a delicate balancing act of competing considerations to achieve a just disposition. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 explained:
…The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender's degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be. In other words, the severity of a sentence depends not only on the seriousness of the crime's consequences, but also on the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Determining a proportionate sentence is a delicate task. As I mentioned above, both sentences that are too lenient and sentences that are too harsh can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
[48] The matter of sentencing ranges was addressed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452, where the court held:
Sentencing 'ranges' ...are not immovable or immutable. They are and represent guidelines, of greater or lesser utility depending upon the breadth of the range. Individual cases may fall within or outside the range. To consider a range of sentence as creating a de facto minimum sentence misses the point, ignores the fundamental principle of proportionality... Individual circumstances matter.
[49] In R. v. D.D., 2002 ONCA 44915, Moldaver J. (as he then was) said the following, at para. 33: “[S]entencing is not an exact science and trial judges must retain the flexibility needed to do justice in individual cases. The suggested ranges are merely guidelines designed to assist trial judges in their difficult task of fashioning fit and just sentences in similar cases.”
[50] This issue has been revisited by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, where the Court held:
Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered 'averages', let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case...
There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself a desirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision. This is why it may happen that a sentence that, on its face, falls outside a particular range, and that may never have been imposed in the past for a similar crime, is not demonstrably unfit. Once again, everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case. LeBel J. commented as follows on this subject:
A judge can order a sentence outside that range as long as it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing. Thus, a sentence falling outside the regular range of appropriate sentences is not necessarily unfit. Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and to the needs of the community in which the offence occurred. (R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] S.C.J. No. 6, at para. 44.)
In other words, sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines, and not hard and fast rules. ( Emphasis added )
[51] Although deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles in this case involving arson endangering life, contrary to s. 433 (a) of the Criminal Code, I recognize that those sentencing principles must not exclude consideration of rehabilitation, particularly in the case of an offender, who will receive a first custodial sentence and in particular, a first penitentiary sentence. In R. v. Borde, 2003 ONCA 4187, the Ontario Court of Appeal held where a youthful offender is to be sentenced to a first penitentiary sentence it should not be determined solely on the basis of general deterrence and denunciation, rather the sentencing court should proceed on the basis that the shortest possible sentence will achieve the relevant objectives. Mr. Borde had a lengthy youth record, which reflected serious charges and sentences. Here Mr. Coffin, although not a youthful offender, has no criminal record and is someone who has never been in trouble with the criminal justice system previously.
[52] I am of the view if Mr. Coffin does not receive the counselling and treatment that he needs to address the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour, particularly towards his family members and friends, he will re-offend and I completely understand the concerns raised by his family members. In my opinion, it is essential for Mr. Coffin to receive anger management treatment and substance abuse assessment and counselling. Further, it is my view that a detailed psychiatric and psychological assessment be conducted with Mr. Coffin to identify any mental health issues that contributed to his commission of these offences to address these issues in order to ensure the public is protected.
[53] Any sentence imposed should promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgement of the harm done to the victim. Mr. Coffin has expressed remorse for his actions as well as an acceptance of responsibility for his criminal behaviour; however, he has attempted to minimize the harm he caused to his victims. I agree with the probation officer’s observation that Mr. Coffin “remains enraged at family and friends for his predicament and expressed remorse for his crimes but only sees the offence through his own lens” and given his comments to the probation officer “he is not capable of seeing any harm done from the perspective of the victims.” In my view his misguided perceptions and attitudes about the horrific consequences his actions brought about raise compelling concerns about the potential for Mr. Coffin engaging in future serious criminal behaviour towards his family members and friends. I agree with the concerns raised by the probation office relating to Mr. Coffin being unmedicated and the impulsivity of his decision-making as a result.
[54] I was provided two sentencing decisions relating to arson endangering life by the Crown. The first, R. v. Fournel, 2014 ONCA 302, the Ontario Court of Appeal in upholding R. v. Fournel, 2012 ONSC 375, held that the range of three to five years imprisonment found by the sentencing judge was appropriate for the offence of arson endangering life. In Fournel, the accused, a police officer, went to the complainant’s house to talk to her about difficulties she was having with the accused’s son. The accused brought liquor to have a drink with the complainant while they talked. She put a sleep aid into the drink and left the complainant asleep in her bed. The complainant awoke to find her bedroom in flames and was able to get out of her residence without injury. The trial judge found the accused was preoccupied with the custody battle, set fire to the closet and spiked the complainant’s drink. The sleep aid was found in the complainant’s urine and the Fire Marshall found the fire was intentionally set in the closet of the bedroom. A two year sentence was imposed for administering a noxious substance and three years consecutive for arson endangering life. The trial judge found, based on the cases that the range of sentence for arson endangering life was three to five years, which was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. There were a number of mitigating circumstances found by the sentencing judge, which put the proportionate sentence for Ms. Fournel at the low end of the range.
[55] The Crown also provided a decision by Justice Ricchetti in the Ontario Superior Court in R. v. Bevacqua, 2014 ONSC 6279, where Justice Ricchetti identified the mitigating circumstances in Fournel, at para. 51:
The three year sentence in Fournel was at the low end of the range for arson endangering life. There were many reasons for this:
a) Cecile Fournel had no criminal record; b) Cecile Fournel had filed 65 letters of support, all describing her as a kind, generous, hard working person. She had extensive contribution to the community personally and as a police officer; c) Cecile Fournel had a continuing strong relationship with her children and grandchildren; d) Cecile Fournel had taken steps to ensure that the children were not placed in harm's way by ensuring that they remained with their father that evening; e) The conviction would soon end her employment as a police officer; f) Any prison time would be more difficult on a former police officer; and g) The three year sentence for arson must be placed in the context of the global sentence of five years for Cecile Fournel. The Crown sought a five year term of incarceration allocated as consecutive terms as follows "three years for the arson endangering life and two years for the administering noxious substance." This was a global sentence and the three years for arson endangering life must not be considered in isolation.
[56] The facts in Bevacqua were somewhat more serious than in Fournel. The victim of the assault was Mr. Bevacqua's spouse. The victims of the arson offences were his spouse and children. Mr. Bevacqua deliberately started a fire knowing that his family was asleep in the home. The aggravating factors were his related criminal record, repeated and escalating incidents of domestic abuse, the setting of the fire knowing that his family was asleep in the home, exposure of firefighters and neighbours to harm, extensive property damage including the death of the family pet, breach of trust and the impact on the victims. He was sentenced to 4 years for the arson endangering life, 2 ½ years concurrent for the arson damage to property and 6 months for an assault on his spouse for a total sentence of 4 and ½ years.
[57] Mr. Coffin expressed to the probation officer that he did not want to receive a penitentiary sentence and he felt a “time served” sentence was appropriate but if further jail was necessary he wanted a sentence no more than two years less a day so he would remain in the reformatory. Both counsel recommended that I impose a penitentiary sentence having regard to the seriousness of the offences, as well as Mr. Coffin’s moral culpability.
Sentence Imposed
[58] In determining the appropriate sentence in this case, I am mindful the sentence to be imposed must reflect the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Coffin. It is my view these are very serious offences in light of the aggravating factors I have outlined above. Mr. Coffin’s moral culpability and blameworthiness is extremely high. His deliberate and calculated actions of setting fire to the motor vehicles in front of his parent’s house, his brother’s house, his brother-in-law’s house and his friend’s house are shocking in the extreme. It is my view that Mr. Coffin knowingly, or at the very least recklessly, endangered the lives of many of his family members and his friend’s family for reasons that are completely inexplicable and frankly unknown. His explanations in the PSR do not make sense and his attempts to minimize the seriousness of his actions and shift the blame to the victims raise far-reaching critical concerns as to his prospects for rehabilitation and whether he will commit further crimes in the future. Mr. Coffin has very little to no insight or awareness into the motivation and underlying reasons behind what motivated him to feel compelled to engage in such dangerous and abhorrent behaviour, which could have resulted in serious injury or death of those sleeping in the houses when the fires were set. The seriousness of the offences must be strongly denounced by the sentence imposed. As well, others need to be deterred from engaging in similar behaviour.
[59] Mr. Coffin’s possession of a number of additional incendiary materials after causing 4 serious fires raises the spectre of his intention to set further fires, perhaps on that same day if he had not been found by the police and arrested. As expressed by Thomas Taylor, Mr. Coffin’s brother-in-law, he became concerned for Mr. Coffin’s wife, Natalie Taylor; a younger sister and other family friends, so he contacted them to warn them to be on the watch for Mr. Coffin because of what he had already done. There is a continuing concern by the many of Mr. Coffin’s victims that their nightmare is not over, particularly if Mr. Coffin does not obtain mental illness counselling and substance abuse counselling to assist him in gaining awareness and insight into the underlying reasons for his decision to set these fires. They believe, as do I based on the facts of this case, that Mr. Coffin requires this in order to not engage in similar conduct in the future.
[60] It is my view that a significant sentence in the penitentiary is the only proportionate sentence that can properly reflect the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Coffin’s moral culpability. The Crown’s position of six years as a global sentence for the four separate counts of arson endangering life and the possession of incendiary materials in my view is within the appropriate range of sentence having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case. The fact there were four fires set by Mr. Coffin increases the seriousness of the offences and in my view the length of a proportionate sentence. I recognize this is a first custodial sentence for Mr. Coffin and in that circumstance I should exercise some restraint respecting the length of what will be also a first penitentiary sentence. I also take into account the harsh conditions present at CECC reflected in the lockdown report, Exhibit 5, where an increased number of lockdown days are regularly occurring because of the global pandemic and the resulting staff shortages. As I indicated this is a collateral consequence that should be considered in my determination of an appropriate, proportionate sentence but not something that can or should reduce a sentence such that it is disproportionate or too lenient.
[61] Mr. Coffin has served 283 days of actual pre-trial custody, which on a 1.5 to 1.0 basis is 425 days of pre-trial credit. Reducing the six year sentence by the pre-trial credit and applying the principle of restraint and considering the collateral consequences existing in this case I am imposing a final sentence of four years and six months in the penitentiary as a proportionate sentence that reflects both the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Coffin’s moral blameworthiness.
[62] In addition I am imposing a s. 109 weapon’s prohibition for 10 years. I am also imposing a D.N.A. order to be taken by 4:30 p.m. on September 2, 2022. I am also making an order that Mr. Coffin is not to communicate, directly or indirectly, with any victim in this case. The Crown is to provide a list of names to Madam Clerk, which will be included in this order under s. 743.21(1).
Released: September 2, 2022 Signed: Justice Peter C. West