Court File and Parties
DATE: November 22, 2024 Court File No: 4810-998-23-48104135-99
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING - v - STEVEN NOEL WICE
Reasons for Sentence
Before: The Honourable Justice B. Brown at: 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, Ontario on: Friday, November 22, 2024
APPEARANCES: P. GARCIA Counsel for the Crown A. PAGE Counsel for S. Wice
BROWN, J. (Orally):
Mr. Steven Wice is named in an Information with an allegation that he will commit a serious personal injury offence as defined in s. 752 of the Criminal Code and asks that he be ordered into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code for a period not exceeding 24 months with such reasonable conditions as the judge may deem appropriate.
This Information was sworn on May 30th, 2023. A special bail hearing was scheduled for February 2nd, 2024, and a publication ban was made pursuant to s. 517 of the Criminal Code on that date. He was released on a bail order on June 5th, 2023. The Court varied the bail to permit an exception to the house arrest for Mr. Wice to attend court without his surety.
The hearing in this matter commenced before this Court for a two-day hearing on June 27th, 2024. The Court was not able to complete the hearing and it was put over to September 3rd and 4th. The defence challenged the admissibility of various materials sought to be put in evidence by the Crown and the Court has ruled that the materials are admissible, but that the materials may be further assessed in terms of weight on the ultimate issue.
These are the Reasons on the ultimate issue.
The Crown called two witnesses on its application. The Crown called the investigating officer, Detective Constable A. Marks, and Mr. Wice’s parole officer, Heather Revill.
The Crown also relied on numerous materials referred to in the “Grounds for Fear” document, which are before the Court. The Court, on an earlier date, ruled upon the admissibility of some of those documents that were challenged by the defence, as noted.
The matter is now before the Court on the ultimate issue as to whether the Court will order Mr. Wice into a recognizance pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code.
Uncontradicted Evidence
The background and context of this application are important. Mr. Steven Wice pled guilty to charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on June 18th, 2010. This arose from an offence date of October 23rd, 2008. He was kept in custody following his arrest on December 2nd, 2008. Thereafter, the Crown brought an application before Justice Quinlan to have Mr. Wice declared to be a dangerous offender. At the time, Mr. Wice was 32 years of age.
Dr. Jonathan Rootenberg, a forensic psychiatrist, did a report dated February 10th of 2011, which the court considered on the dangerous offender application. Dr. Derek Pallandi, a forensic psychiatrist, was called by the defence in that application to do a report, which is dated March 14th, 2012, for the court to consider on the dangerous offender application. Both of these reports are before this Court and have been reviewed by this Court in this application.
It is very important to note the diagnoses related to Mr. Wice. In particular, he does not suffer from a major mental illness. He has been diagnosed by Dr. Rootenberg as having an antisocial personality disorder, having six of the seven adult criteria for diagnoses. Dr. Rootenberg indicated that treatment for this disorder is difficult. It focusses primarily on training in relation to anger management, social skills and vocational skills. As will be considered below, the Court has a very real concern as to whether Mr. Wice has actually genuinely participated in anger management counselling and treatment. The Court notes that his score on the psychopathy checklist was 29, meaning that only 20 percent of male offenders in the standardization sample had higher scores.
Mr. Wice also has narcistic personality traits. Mr. Wice also meets the diagnosis criteria for a substance abuse disorder in relation to alcohol, cannabis and ecstasy and he may meet the criteria for substance dependence disorder. Treatment may involve both psychological and pharmacological treatment, group therapy, relapse prevention training and Antabuse. One of the concerns is whether he still suffers from substance abuse disorder given the evidence in this application.
Mr. Wice’s score on the VRAG, which is the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, is 26, putting him in the 98th percentile of male violent offenders. He is in the second highest category of risk for violent recidivism. Over the long term, Justice Quinlan noted that Mr. Wice, as of 2012, was in a very high-risk category to engage in future violent behaviour over the long term. Specifically, at Paragraph 68 of Justice Quinlan’s Reasons, the court noted:
“[68] Dr. Rootenberg testified that as a result of Mr. S.N.W.’s antisocial Personality disorder, he requires assiduous supervision and monitoring. In order to reign in his antisocial personality disorder, he needs a highly structured and supervised monitoring system, stringent, frequent reporting, random urinalysis, the verification of his activities across many domains and attendance in programmers. Mr. S.N.W. should receive anger management training, social skills training and training in the area of employment.”
In the proceeding before Justice Quinlan, following the reception of the reports, the Crown sought to have Mr. Wice sentenced to a fixed sentence in the penitentiary and to be subject to a long-term supervision order for ten years. The facts in relation to the predicate offences for that application will be outlined below.
In the end, Justice Quinlan relied upon the psychiatric evidence, including Dr. Rootenberg’s opinion. The court then stated at paragraph 19 of its Reasons as follows:
“At the time of preparation of his report in February 2011, Dr. Rootenberg stated that, ‘While the possibility of successful treatment and alternative sanctions exist, they appear to be more theoretical than practical.’ As a result of the further interview with Mr. S.N.W. and the review of institutional records from his time in remand, Dr. Rootenberg’s opinion at the time of testifying was that there is now a reasonable expectation that the public can be adequately protected against the commission by Mr. S.N.W. of a serious personal injury offence so long as ‘highly vigilant measures’ are put in place to manage him in the community.”
The court sentenced Mr. Wice at that time to a fixed sentence of six years in the penitentiary on the aggravated assault noting pre-sentence custody of six years to that point with a further day in jail, to be followed by a long-term supervision order for ten years. On the assault with a weapon charge, he was sentenced to one year incarceration consecutive to be followed by the concurrent long-term supervision order for ten years.
Circumstances Related to Mr. Wice
Justice Quinlan set out in great detail the circumstances and background of Mr. Wice, drawing largely from the report of Dr. Rootenberg, which is also before this Court. This is set out in Paragraphs 20 to 30 of Justice Quinlan’s Reasons.
In summary, Mr. Wice was raised in a family environment that was at times physically abusive. He had a difficult relationship with his father. His parents were the victims of one or more of his serious offences when he was a youth. He became involved with alcohol, drugs and gangs as an adolescent and left home at the age of 15 years. He had difficulties in school, describing himself as suffering from ADHD. He was frequently suspended for fighting and threatening teachers and convicted of assaulting a vice-principal and threatening another with death. He had little employment history given a large proportion of his life he has been in custody. He had developed a relationship with a girlfriend that began just before he went to jail. This previous long-term relationship involved the victim of his domestic assault conviction in 2005. He has a history of suicide attempts and self-mutilation when he gets angry. He suffers from asthma and has had numerous head injuries.
In 2011, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer and underwent surgery and chemotherapy.
He has a history of alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and crystal methamphetamine use. He told Dr. Rootenberg that he was probably drunk or high when he committed most of the offences on his criminal record. (This is to be contrasted with his statements to the psychology student in the 2021 report before the Court on this application where he denied the relationship between his ingestion of substances and the commission of offences on his record.) He has had a substance dependency. He has had anger management difficulties.
It is significant that of the 12 years preceding his sentencing in relation to the dangerous offender application he had spent the previous approximately ten years in custody. Roughly, that is over the period of when he was 20 to 32 years of age.
While in custody at various institutions, he was involved in many instances of misconduct, including violence, threats of violence, verbal abuse, vandalism and non-compliant behaviour. He did not complete an anger management programme and he did not take a substance abuse treatment programme.
It is notable that as it relates to past releases into the community as set out in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Reasons of Justice Quinlan:
“[45] In 2002, Mr. S.N.W. was released on parole from his federal sentence for two counts of armed robbery. He was placed on a residency condition to reside at the Keele Community Correctional Centre, in Toronto. The residency condition was imposed in order to address Mr. S.N.W.’s risk management needs after his release into the community. He encountered problems within a month by violating his non-association condition and through his deteriorating attitude.
“[46] In December 2002, Mr. S.N.W. was recommitted to custody for violating his statutory release. In addition, he breached probation orders on a number of occasions.”
Justice Quinlan also noted that Mr. Wice had been assessed as a maximum security offender based upon his problematic institutional history, his criminal history and lack of compliance with supervision.
He also had not completed any core programming while in the federal system.
The court also noted at paragraphs 48 and 49:
“[48]From 2004 to 2008, Mr. S.N.W. was assessed as having ‘very high’ risk needs. In 2008, Mr. S.N.W. stated that he would not abide by non-association conditions on his probation and acknowledged he liked to drink and had no intention of stopping.
“[49]Throughout, Mr. S.N.W. appear to have had significant problems with authority. Those problems continued into his relationship with his most recent probation and parole officer, Wayne Pentland. In his initial reporting, Mr. S.N.W. swore at Mr. Pentland and walked out”
While this Court would not normally quote and rely so heavily on Reasons of a court some 12 years ago, there are elements of repetition in the behaviour of Mr. Wice even as he has matured and appears before the Court on this application.
Offences Committed Prior to Predicate Offences
Prior to the dangerous offender designation and incarceration and ten-year long-term supervision order, Mr. Wice has had numerous prior convictions and sentences on his criminal record. Some of the facts of those offences are outlined in transcripts before this Court, and in other cases, while the entries on the criminal record are not disputed, the facts of the offence in some of those charges are uncertain.
The Court has considered and reviewed in great detail the content of the transcripts before the Court as they relate to the prior convictions on the record. The Court has issued a ruling related to the admissibility of materials sought to be introduced by the Crown from police occurrence reports and disclosure material which may or may not have reflected findings of fact or agreed facts in relation to those prior entries on the record.
Accordingly, the Court briefly outlines those prior offences as follows:
Tab 1 Mr. Wice has an entry on his criminal record in youth court in 1996 for utter threats and assault. The Court finds that the facts underlying these convictions are unclear and are not accepted by Mr. Wice or set out by Dr. Rootenberg as arising from a transcript. The Court considers the occurrence report from Barrie Police to be of very little weight.
Tab 2 1998, assault with a weapon, sex assault, youth court. As indicated in the ruling as to admissibility, Mr. Wice did acknowledge that the victim in this matter was a guy at work. That was his expression. The Court finds that in relation to the sexual assault charge, the Crown can rely on the date and name of the victim as with the other charges, but the Court places very little weight on the disclosure package as it is not clear whether those facts were acknowledged as the basis for guilt and disposition in that matter.
Tab 3 - 2000, armed robbery. In this adult entry on his record, Mr. Wice did not acknowledge the facts and there was no transcript. The sentence after consideration of seven months pre-sentence custody was a sentence of six months jail and two years probation, and the Court finds that it can consider the date of the offence, the name of the victim in the occurrence report and as well the sentence as an indication of the severity of that charge. Otherwise, the Court finds the occurrence report to be of very little weight for this Court in this application.
Tab 7 2006, assault (robbery). This appears to be a resolution of a robbery charge by virtue of a finding of guilt in relation to assault. The Crown sought to rely on a disclosure package for this offence which relates to the robbery charge. As indicated, the entry on the record was not for robbery, but was for assault. The Court finds that it can consider the date of the offence and identity of the victim, but otherwise, given that there was a conviction for a lesser and included offence, the Court finds that the disclosure package in relation to the more serious original charge of robbery to cause great concern to the Court in terms of reliance upon the robbery allegations. The Court can consider the material in the disclosure package to be of very little weight. The Court can consider the nature of the sentence of pre-sentence custody credit of 191 days and a suspended sentence of one year probation and a s. 110 weapons prohibition order as something the Court can consider in terms of the seriousness of the assault.
Tab 8 2006, assault with a weapon (other charges included). Crown counsel put before the Court what it submitted was a transcript in relation to this entry on the record, and had that been the case, the Court would have been able to consider the facts in the transcript for this entry on the record. Unfortunately, as the Court discovered on its own, the transcript does not relate to this entry on the record and is therefore of no assistance in finding the facts of that entry on the record. However, given Mr. Wice’s acknowledgment to Dr. Rootenberg, the Court finds that it can consider his comments wherein Mr. Wice stated, “That was my domestic. Me and my girl got in an argument and I threatened her with a knife. Months later, we were at a friend’s house and we argued again. She was drunk and I was high. I got in a fight with a friend and hit my girlfriend. The police came and by then things had calmed down, but I had an outstanding warrant. I was cuffed and tried to run while they were making other arrests and so they charged me for escape lawful custody.” Justice Quinlan also referred to this acknowledgement in paragraph 39 of his Reasons.
Tab 9 2007, robbery. The Crown sought to rely on a disclosure package for this offence and the Court notes that the sentence imposed after consideration of 71 days pre-sentence custody credit was a sentence of seven months jail and two years probation together with a s. 110 weapons prohibition for ten years. This could be relied upon to consider the seriousness of the offence. However, more particularly, the Court notes that Justice Quinlan clearly had a transcript of that entry on the record for the facts of that offence and that court stated at paragraph 40: On March 15, 2007, the offender pleaded guilty to robbery. A transcript disclosed that he came upon a woman at a bank machine withdrawing money. He tried to grab things from her. During a struggle, the offender struck the victim with a closed fist on the side of her head, taking her cell phone and some money. The victim suffered slight swelling to her forehead. Mr. S.N.W. minimized his involvement in his recounting of the events to Dr. Rootenberg. I am satisfied that the facts that were accepted at the guilty plea are the facts on which this court should rely on this application.” Accordingly, this Court finds that it can rely on the facts set out in paragraph 40 as indicative of the facts of that offence because the judge relied upon an actual transcript in making reference to those facts.
Tab 10 2008, robbery. The Crown relied upon a disclosure package with an occurrence report for which a sentence of eight months pre-sentence custody credit resulted in a sentence of one day jail and two years probation and this was part of the sentence together with a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for the offence, indicative of the seriousness of the offence. The Court finds that it can consider the date and identity of the victim, but the Court will place very little weight on the disclosure package and occurrence report given the absence of a transcript or other confirming information as to what facts of that offence were found in relation to that entry on the record.
Facts in Relation to Predicate Offences
The Court takes the facts related to the predicate offences from the Reasons of the court, Justice Quinlan, on May 18th, 2012. They are reported at 2012 ONSC 3363 and are set out in paragraph 6 to 12 of those Reasons. The Court would note, as indicated earlier, in those Reasons, Mr. Wice is referred to as “S.N.W” in the Reasons.
At paragraph 6, the court stated:
"On October 20, 2008, at about 6:00 p.m., the victim, Charles Goudie, was at the Salvation Army Men's Hostel in downtown Barrie with his friend Steven Smits. While having his meal, Mr. Goudie overheard someone say 'faggot'. Mr. Goudie turned around and asked the offender if he was speaking to him. The offender, who was known by his street name 'Mischief', stood up and became confrontational with Mr. Goudie. Mr. Goudie and Mr. Smits left the Salvation Army to avoid a confrontation. The offender followed them into an alleyway and produced a pocket knife. He held it several inches away from Mr. Goudie’s face, making the gesture of an X with the knife, saying, 'I’m going to leave my mark.' The offender became confrontational with Mr. Smits and punched him." in the side of the head. Mr. Smits grabbed the offender and punched him repeatedly, telling the offender to leave them alone. Mr. Smits and Mr. Goudie left the area.
"[7] The next day, Mr. Goudie and Mr. Smits were again at the Salvation Army for dinner. They were again confronted by the offender in a parking lot where approximately twenty people were present. The offender approached Mr. Goudie, holding the same pocket knife in his hand. He said, 'I’m going to cut your face up and you won’t be so pretty, pretty boy.' Mr. Goudie and Mr. Smits ignored the offender and continued into the hostel."
“[8] Two days later, on October 23, 2008, Mr. Goudie and another friend attended for lunch at the same hostel. They were approached by the offender, who again pulled out the knife and began to yell at Mr. Goudie, saying that his tough friend was not around, come into the alley and finish this once and for all. Mr. Goudie ignored the offender and tried to walk past him. The offender punched Mr. Goudie in the face and then fled on foot. Mr. Goudie called Mr. Smits, who began looking for the offender. Mr. Smits found the offender and grabbed him by the jacket. There was a physical confrontation. The offender produced a knife and stabbed Mr. Smits in the neck. The wound was approximately 2.5 cm wide and 2.3 cm deep. It required four stitches to close. There was no damage to any underlying structures. Mr. Smits remained at the hospital for three hours for treatment of the wound.
"[9] Mr. S.N.W. was contacted by police and evaded them for approximately six weeks until his arrest in Toronto on December 2, 2008.
“[10] Both Drs. Rootenberg and Pallandi interviewed Mr. S.N.W. concerning his version of the predicate offences. Mr. S.N.W. told both psychiatrists that he was standing up for his friend and ‘took it too far.’ He acknowledged having lost his temper and said he didn’t think he really wanted to stab Mr. Smits. Mr. S.N.W.’s position was that he was not trying to kill Mr. Smits, that ‘it just happened.’
“[11] Mr. S.N.W. told Dr. Rootenberg that around the time of the offences, he was consuming beer, ‘weed and a line of coke.’ Although he was using ecstasy several days per week, Mr. Wice did not believe that he consumed any that day. The offender told Dr. Pallandi that he was not under the influence of any intoxicating substance at the material times.
“[12] Dr. Rootenberg agreed that the comments Mr. S.N.W. made to both him and to Dr. Pallandi demonstrated remorse."
Following the finding of Justice Quinlan, of the Superior Court of Justice in Barrie, on May 18th, 2012, that Mr. Wice met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender, he was given a fixed sentence which was followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.
In terms of subsequent convictions, Mr. Wice has been found guilty for assault cause bodily harm and breach of that long-term supervision order and was sentenced for those offences on September 10th, 2018, in Toronto. After credit for the equivalent of two years and 40 days of pre-sentence custody credit, he was sentenced to a further 153 days incarceration. This was an effective sentence of two years and 193 days or two years, six months and 13 days incarceration, quite a significant sentence.
This has been referred to in the materials. It involved Mr. Wice attending at a family barbeque and after a dispute with two other males, hitting the victim with a crowbar. The victim sustained a fractured elbow. The defence referred to this as an incident of excessive force used in the context of potential self-defence. It arose from an original dispute over whether a dog should be on a leash or not on a leash at a family barbeque.
As noted herein, following completion of his long-term supervision order and while on the strict conditions of bail in relation to this application, Mr. Wice has been charged with other charges. He was charged with assault arising from allegations on January 24th, 2024, for which a trial is scheduled to be heard in January of 2025. The presumption of innocence applies to those allegations, but it is the source of a restrictive bail of house arrest and GPS monitoring set out below, referred to by both defence and Crown counsel for consideration of the Court.
Significantly, the Court would note the prior comments of Dr. Rootenberg regarding the need for treatment. As it related to the diagnosis of Mr. Wice suffering from antisocial personality disorder, Dr. Rootenberg referred to the need for treatment, particularly, the Court would note, in relation to anger management.
The Court has considered the psychological input from Dr. Bergamasco in the assessment report dated April 24th, 2013. The Court has reviewed that report, which was 12 pages in length, in great detail. This is not a positive report.
In terms of an update from a professional perspective, although the parties refer to the 2015 report of Dr. Abrace as a psychiatric assessment, the Court would note that this was not a "psychiatric assessment”. It was a set of two pages of notes by a psychologist, Dr. Abrace. This referral followed a relationship Mr. Wice previously had with Dr. Bergamasco where it was deemed that Mr. Wice was not making progress in treatment. During that time, Dr. Abrace saw Mr. Wice for six therapy sessions. Mr. Wice did not attend other sessions that were scheduled by Dr. Abrace. While he was ill for one of the sessions, it was noted that he simply did not attend the remaining sessions. The notes make reference to Mr. Wice’s view that there was no point in meeting with a psychologist.
Dr. Abrace made reference to Mr. Wice’s state of inebriation as “being plastered” as described by Mr. Wice while on the LTSO. The exchange indicates that Mr. Wice does not believe that alcohol or drugs influence his behaviour. The Court would note this stark lack of perception on the part of Mr. Wice in contrast to the views of the psychiatrist who assessed Mr. Wice in relation to the dangerous offender and LTSO procedure. Dr. Abrace’s view essentially was that the risk level for Mr. Wice had not changed since Dr. Rootenberg and Dr. Pallandi assessed him. The Court indicated earlier that that was noted to be a high risk.
Dr. Abrace referred to potential benefit from counselling related to anger and emotions management, relationships, substance abuse, but that Mr. Wice had been very reluctant to participate in this counselling. The doctor saw little point in compelling Mr. Wice to attend this counselling given that he had little interest in doing so. This was a negative report.
It is notable that in 2019 in a programme performance report that Mr. Wice had been granted flexibility to attend while maintaining employment. During the first few sessions of the programme, he attempted to start arguments with the programme facilitator. Then he stopped attending the programme. A meeting was held with him and his parole officer, Ms. Revill. Mr. Wice stated that the programme was not useful and that he could not gain anything from participation. He was cautioned on the consequences of dropping out of the programme and agreed to attend, but stated he would likely not be engaging in any discussion or written work. It was noted that when he returned to the sessions, he did not appear to be interested in engagement, but he was no longer disruptive. However, it was noted that his attitude towards the programme prevented him from engaging in any meaningful discussion or showing how he internalized any of the skills. The facilitator noted that there was little presented to suggest Mr. Wice would be open towards making any gains in the outstanding deficit areas. It was noted that:
"Intensive supervision and restrictions on his community access appear to be more beneficial to limiting risk than access to professional supports due to his attitude towards programs and psychology."
The Court is troubled by this given the comments earlier of Dr. Rootenberg with respect to the need for Mr. Wice to have this type of treatment that apparently has not worked.
In 2021, Mr. Wice was seen by a psychology associate who did not appear to be a psychologist, and this resulted in the preparation of a two-page health intervention summary. The summary was supervised by a psychologist. Mr. Wice attended nine sessions. The author stated that Mr. Wice recognized that if his behaviours of being aggressive and having little regard for others’ feelings continued as related to particular instances in the past, he realized that he would not be able to maintain himself in the community as he would likely become involved in altercations. The report acknowledged that Mr. Wice was a high-risk, high-need offender. The author recommended the need for development of anger management skills, education on substance abuse management and the need for building a positive therapeutic working relationship. It was the review of the author that, although there was a difficult start to the therapeutic relationship, he appeared to show improvements. The Court did not find this report to be particularly helpful, given its contents when examined closely and in juxtaposition with the reports of qualified psychologists and psychiatrists.
As it related to his substance abuse disorder, Dr. Rootenberg referred to the need for treatment involving substance abuse. The Court would note that it is not clear as to any specific treatment that he’s been given for this problem. However, the parties seem somewhat in agreement, for reasons not particularly understood by this Court, that substance abuse is not a particular concern currently.
The problem of greater concern to this Court is related to anger management and emotions management and the need for intensive treatment in that regard. In the context of the high-risk assessment of Mr. Wice at the time of the LTSO proceeding, as stated by Drs. Rootenberg and Pallandi, the court finds that his risk was not abated in any material way throughout the period of the long-term supervision order as set out in the reports in 2013 and 2015. The relatively short report by what appears to be a psychology student in 2021 is the only potential positive indication, but given the contents of those notes which the Court has closely examined, in the context of a long line of expert opinions prior to that date, the Court does not find that his high risk has been lessened. The author, as a student, seems to rely greatly on what Mr. Wice told the student as opposed to objective measures as to whether Mr. Wice had improved. There was no mention of the very serious conviction for the 2018 assault cause bodily harm and the penitentiary sentence arising from that offence, which was subsequent to the 2015 opinion of Dr. Abrace, which was of great concern to this Court.
Further, the Court looks at whether Mr. Wice has actually followed through in various opportunities he has had for addressing his anger management issues through counselling. Throughout the reports, there is a concern in that regard. He often did not attend sessions. He did not develop a good therapeutic relationship with professionals. He did not feel he needed it.
In 2018 and 2019, he commenced treatment but did not successfully attend the programme. He just received what the Court would note was an 'attended all sessions' as opposed to what the Court would find to be proper participation and benefit for a participant in the programme.
Then in the 2021 notes by the psychology student, the Court would note the author’s contradictory consideration of the need for anger management counselling. It refers to the lack of a potential need for anger management counselling, yet refers to the recommendation for anger management counselling in the community.
It seems very much like the system has just given up during the LTSO on trying to treat Mr. Wice for anger management and emotions management and this is of grave concern to the Court for Mr. Wice having been diagnosed as suffering from an antisocial personality disorder. The Court would note its concern that the applicant ironically does not seek a term to take management counselling arising from a legal concern that the Crown or police would not be able to enforce that in the event Mr. Wice did not sign a consent to allow monitoring of such a condition. The position of the applicant in that regard is very troubling to this Court.
In terms of the concern related to substance abuse, the Court would note that the parties seem agreed that this is no longer a concern, although, as indicated, the Court fails to see the rationale for this joint position. However, the Court is unable to look beyond that given the evidentiary record before the Court.
Conduct While On LTSO
In addition to the criminal convictions and sentences and outstanding charges noted above, there have been instances of note while Mr. Wice was on the LTSO.
The Court has considered in great detail the various instances of potential breaches of his conditions of the LTSO as set out on pages 18 to 20 of the “Grounds for Fear” and as the subject of the testimony of Heather Revill.
There are many instances and some relate to more serious matters than others. Some were more minor or administrative, but others were more serious and of concern to the Court including the terms requiring abstention from drugs and alcohol, deteriorating behaviour and curfew.
In brief, the Court notes -- the Court is not going to repeat all of the instances which are clearly set out in the materials and which have been considered as material and reviewed in great detail by the Court in the consideration of this application. Some of the instances did not result in criminal charges or resulted in criminal charges for which there was no conviction.
In 2019, his LTSO was suspended as a result of aggressive, inappropriate and threatening behaviours towards his mother during a Family Court appearance. He threatened to bury his mother after following her outside the court. He was arrested for this incident and he was suspended.
In 2020, he was suspended for a sixth time due to an accumulation of aggressive behaviours and escalation in risk. It was noted that he was very loud, defiant and spoke in very threatening tones and acted very verbally aggressive towards security staff at the Keele Centre and confronted regarding enforcement of the rules at the centre.
In 2020, he was suspended a seventh time for violating the direction to not associate with his ex-girlfriend, Ms. Boyd. Ms. Boyd had called and indicated that she could not take it anymore, that he was stalking and harassing her by going to where she lived and threatening her current boyfriend. She said she was afraid to return home and was considering contacting the police to charge him. She subsequently did not charge him and that seems to be relied upon somewhat by Ms. Revill in her testimony that she had concerns effectively as to what had happened. It is clear that Ms. Revill challenges whatever Ms. Boyd has told her.
There was an allegation and charge of assault in relation to his child and it was withdrawn for reasons not remembered or stated by Ms. Revill, interestingly.
The Court would note that there are positive elements in the subsequent conduct of Mr. Wice, including his commitment to seek and maintain employment, his relationship with his current partner, who is now his surety on the bail order related to the recent assault charge, and his residency with her as a term of bail where the Court is advised he also supports their children.
Allegations and Bail in Relation to Trial Scheduled for January 2025
Mr. Wice was placed on a release order in relation to the subject Information, which is the application, in the amount of $500.00 with no deposit and no surety. This release was on June 5, 2023. There was no house arrest condition and no GPS monitoring for this release. There was an extensive set of 11 conditions which the defence counsel argued before the Court monitored somewhat the terms sought in this application. The Court was advised that this release remains in effect currently.
As stated above, Mr. Wice has also been bound by conditions for a 24-month period beginning on June 5, 2023, as a result of the assault allegation. He has been on that release with those conditions to the current date, which is a period of 17 months and 17 days.
It is to be noted that the applicant’s position throughout is that given the procedure and time required in scheduling and hearing this application, by the time that the court will be in a position to deliver its decision, Mr. Wice will have been bound by the same terms and conditions for most of the 24 months sought in the application.
If the Court had imposed the 24-month recognizance at the outset, it would have been completed on June 5th, 2025. There would have been, as of today, a balance of 6 months and 13 days left on a 24-month recognizance.
Currently, as stated, Mr. Wice is on a house arrest with various exceptions in relation to the assault charge. This arose from the allegation of assault on January 27, 2024, for which he was released, as indicated, on an order with two sureties and the combined amount of $5,000.00. As indicated, the bail order has contained a house arrest condition with exceptions for employment, when with one of the sureties, or medical emergencies. The bail order also has had a term for GPS monitoring. The bail order provides that Mr. Wice is not to have any contact with two named persons and to stay away from an address. That was not a s. 524 bail application.
The Court states that in relation to the recent allegations which are scheduled for a trial to take place in January of 2025 for assault, Mr. Wice is presumed to be innocent. As indicated, both counsel referred to this for different reasons. The defence wanted the Court to know that Mr. Wice is charged with an offence of assault for which he has different defence counsel. The trial will take place as scheduled in January of 2025. The defence submitted he has already been subject to a very strict house arrest term while on that release for that charge of assault. The actual bail order is known to the Court as defence counsel in this application sought, and the Court agreed, to vary the house arrest term to allow an exception for him to come to court without his surety, who is his common-law spouse, given her need to attend to children’s needs. This bail order was put before the Court and signed to vary his bail order and that bail commenced on February 2nd of 2024.
Assessment of Evidence
The Court will specifically make reference to a concern it has with the testimony of Heather Revill, who on occasion in her testimony appeared to be less than objective in her assessment of Mr. Wice and his behaviour. It is important to consider the context of instances of not complying with terms which did not result in a suspension of the LTSO. For instance, she was to consider the least restrictive measures responding to breaches and she was not to suspend Mr. Wice unless she had concluded that the risk was no longer manageable.
The Court specifically notes that there were two instances where the mother of Mr. Wice later resiled from her allegations of the deteriorating conduct of Mr. Wice towards her, a scenario the Court would note is one of an intra familial domestic situation.
Secondly, Ms. Revill clearly made adverse findings of credibility as it related to a domestic situation involving his former girlfriend, Ms. Boyd, and her indications of his deteriorating behaviour arising from what seems to be a concern that Ms. Boyd did not report the incidents to the police when she stated she was in fear of Mr. Wice.
The Court has concerns about the reliability of the evidence of Ms. Revill, and where the defence seeks to rely on her opinion that Mr. Wice had improved over the period of supervision of him, the Court considers her role as having had a job to have him improve his behaviour over the ten years that he was under her supervision. The Court found her evidence to be less than forthright and candid and certainly lacking in objectivity and reliability in various aspects.
As it related to the testimony of D.C. Marks, the Court found that she gave her evidence in a forthright and credible manner and most of her evidence was confirmed by the numerous documents before the Court.
S. WICE: (Laughing.) Oh, sorry. Not sorry. Go ahead.
THE COURT: You need to sit quietly and listen if you want...
S. WICE: Oh, I'm listening.
THE COURT: ...to hear the rest of it.
S. WICE: I'm listening to the bullshit coming out of your mouth, but it’s okay.
THE COURT: Sit quietly.
S. WICE: Yeah.
THE COURT: The Court found her evidence to be credible and reliable overall, relying on the documentary materials which are consistent with her testimony. The Court accepts her testimony that she had a subjective belief that Mr. Wice will commit a serious personal injury offence. In other words, the Court finds that she had a genuine subjective belief in that regard.
You can’t drink coffee in the court, so put your cup down.
That still leaves for the consideration of the Court, as indicated below, whether this belief was a fear on reasonable grounds, that is to say, objectively based.
Law
Where fear of serious personal injury offence, s. 810.2(1) of the Criminal Code:
"Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in s. 752 of the Criminal Code, may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an Information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed, are named.
“(3.1) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of an offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period that does not exceed two years.
“(4.1) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that require the defendant:
(a) to participate in a treatment programme; (b) to wear an electronic monitoring device if the Attorney General makes the request; (c) to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge; (d) to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times; (e) to abstain from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance; (f) to provide for the purpose of analysis a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.3(2a)...”
Ms. Page, do you want to speak to your client because it’s very disruptive and I would like to get through reading my Reasons without interruption.
A. PAGE: I apologize, Your Honour. My client just asked me if this was the part of your order and I explained to him that, no, you’re just reading the part of the legislation. So…
THE COURT: Well… if he could quit talking and just….
A. PAGE: I will try to be more quiet.
THE COURT: That’s right. If you could….
S. WICE: But if I’m unsure….
THE COURT: Listen….
S. WICE: … I have to ask, right?
THE COURT: If he could listen, he’d be able to follow it better than just talking.
A. PAGE: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I’m continuing:
“… to make a demand at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(g) to provide for the purpose of analysis a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.3(2b) to specify them if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance."
I am going to stop at this point. Those are potential conditions that the Criminal Code sets out that the court can place an individual on for a recognizance.
The Court has also considered the provisions as they relate to s. 810.2(5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8) of the Criminal Code
Next, continuing from the Criminal Code, s. 752, definition of serious personal injury offence:
”serious personal injury offence means
(a) an indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving
(i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or
(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person,
and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more, or
(b) an offence or attempt to commit an offence mentioned in section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault).”
The Court must consider whether the Crown has proven on a balance of probabilities that D.C. Marks has reasonable grounds for her fear. This means that the Court must consider the reasonableness of the informant’s fear. It is not a test of proving that he will commit such an offence, but rather, that there are reasonable grounds to fear that he will. See, R. v. Budreo, [2000] O.J. No. 72, at paragraph 52.
The outcome, if the Court is convinced, is ordering Mr. Wice on a recognizance and in that sense it is a preventative procedure, not a punitive sanction for committing a criminal offence. As set out earlier in the Court’s ruling as to the admissibility of the materials tendered by the Crown, following R. v. Budreo, the judge may, in consideration of the issue, rely upon hearsay evidence which is credible and trustworthy.
The Court finds that it will apply procedural standards akin to a summary conviction trial rather than a bail hearing. Although through the examination-in-chief of D.C. Marks, the defence challenged the admissibility of evidence related to her subjective belief, it is clear from the Budreo case, at paragraphs 24 and 25, that is the first prong of a two-prong test as set out by Justice Then. It was for that reason that this Court ruled that evidence is admissible. The second prong, which the Crown must also prove, is whether this belief is objectively founded. In essence, the fear that an individual will commit a particular type of offence by the informant, D.C. Marks, which must be subjectively believed and objectively reasonable.
At paragraph 25, in Budreo, Justice Then stated:
“Both sections 810 and 810.1 speak of a reasonably grounded fear that the defendant will commit an offence. To my mind, as a matter of legislative construction, this takes the appropriate threshold to a notch above a simple demonstration that the defendant is more likely than not to commit an offence. A reasonably grounded fear of a serious and imminent danger must be proved on a balance of probabilities. [Emphasis added.]”
The trial court in Budreo considered the types of evidence that might be considered in a s. 810.1 application. In paragraph 28, the court referred to a scenario of the person having assaulted others on previous occasions that this court ought to be considered in determining whether an informant’s fears are well placed.
The court considered the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at page 333. In that case, the Supreme Court stated at paragraph 33:
“Finally, the legislation of other jurisdictions reveals the general acceptance of preventive detention as a means of dealing with dangerous offenders. In their comprehensive review of protective sentencing of dangerous offenders in the United Kingdom, Floud and Young, Dangerousness and Criminal Justice (London 1981) note that ‘the laws of most, if not all, western countries make provisions for the sentencing of offenders against whom the public requires special protection’. For example, they observe, Denmark provides for protective custody of dangerous offenders who commit or attempt to commit homicide, robbery, rape and other serious offences. Similarly, the Swedish Penal Code of 1965 provides that ‘internment may be imposed if the crime .. is punishable by imprisonment for two years or longer and in view of the defendant’s criminality, mental condition, conduct, and other circumstances, a long-lasting deprivation of liberty, without duration fixed in advance, is deemed necessary to prevent further serious criminality on his part’ (at p. 103). Norval Morris, in ‘The Habitual Criminal’ (1967), 13 McGill L.T. 534, also observes that a number of countries have enacted legislation to deal with incorrigible or habitual offenders, and notes, at p. 536, that generally three elements are included in the definition of the group targeted for such punishment – criminal qualities inherent or latent in the mental constitution, a settled practice in crime, and a public danger.”
Justice Then found that by examining known risk factors, particularly when risk factors are combined, the court can make reasonably secure predictions despite false positive problems.
Quoting from Justice Ryan in R. v. Patrick, (1990), 75 C.R. (3d) 222, the court in Budreo stated that:
“The actions of the defendant in the past, whether he is a peaceable or violent man, may well assist the court in determining the reasonableness of the informant’s fears and the likelihood that the defendant will carry through his threats.”
The Court would note that the fear must relate to an enumerated offence as set out in the provisions related to the s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code provision. In Budreo, the court considered the provisions of s. 810.1 and the specific offences related to children under 14 and specific offences.
The court, in considering this application, tries to measure Mr. Wice’s present likelihood of future dangerousness or present risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.
In Budreo, Justice Then considered the predictability of future behaviour at paragraphs 82, 83 and 91. The applicant referred to methodological difficulties in predicting whether a person is at risk of reoffending and that the predictive studies often produce more false positives than correct predictions of dangerousness. However, Justice Then noted that the presence of a criminal record is the best single factor for predicting whether individuals will commit an offence. The court also noted, again in the specific context of Budreo, as it relates to sexual offences against children, that uncertainty can be reduced by referring to a number of recognized factors which were set out in the evidence in that case by Dr. Marshall. The evidence also supported an inference that the greater the evidence of multiple risk factors, the more confident the court can be in assessing what constitutes reasonable grounds for a recognizance.
Justice Then then specifically stated:
“[85] The same argument on false positives and the uncertainty of predictions was made and rejected in Lyons, supra, at pgs. 365-68. Nothing in the evidence on this application convinces me otherwise. It is constitutionally sufficient that the evidence be able to demonstrate a likelihood of dangerousness without having to make an exact prediction, Morales, supra, at pgs. 738-39.”
And further, at paragraph 91:
“As I stated in my analysis, the term “fear” used in a legislative context does not give effect to unsubstantiated paranoia. It implies that whatever fear the informant has must be made out objectively on 'reasonable grounds'. See, Banks, supra, D. (J.M.) and P. (J.G.), supra, at pp. 46-47, Adjei, supra, at 682. A fear is a belief that something injurious is about to happen. In my view, the phrase 'fears on reasonable grounds' equates to a belief objectively established that the individual will commit an offence. The fact that s. 810.1 is based on predicting future behaviour means that some degree of imprecision will arise but this, in itself, does not make a provision impermissibly vague."
The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morales, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711, at paragraph 43, stated:
"While it is undoubtedly the case that it is impossible to make exact predictions about recidivism and future dangerousness, exact predictability of future dangerousness is not constitutionally mandated. In R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at pp. 364-65, La Forest J. considered the validity of the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code:
However, as Holmes has reminded us, the life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The criminal law must operate in a world governed by practical considerations rather than abstract logic and, as a matter of practicality, the most that can be established in a future context is a likelihood of certain events occurring....
It seems to me that a "likelihood" of specified future conduct occurring is the finding of fact required to be established; it is not, at one and the same time, the means of proving that fact. Logically, it seems clear to me that an individual can be found to constitute a threat to society without insisting that this require the court to assert an ability to predict the future.
In the context of the consideration of bail, the Supreme Court noted at paragraph 44:
"The bail system does not aim to make exact predictions about future dangerousness because such predictions are impossible to make. However, Lyons demonstrates that it is sufficient to establish a likelihood of dangerousness, and that the impossibility of making exact predictions does not preclude a bail system which aims to deny bail to those who likely will be dangerous."
The court in R. v. R.J.D., [2004] B.C.J. No. 2314 (British Columbia Supreme Court), noted the need to assess the risk by reference to the totality of the relevant factors.
Unfortunately, the Court does not have time to finish the Reasons, although they are almost done. So, I am going to take a break from reading them at this point and we’ll resume at 2:15 because I need to address a few cases that need to be put over.
A. PAGE: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: So, we’ll come back at 2:15.
P. GARCIA: Thank you.
--- Other matters spoken to and duly recorded. --- Luncheon recess. --- Upon resuming: --- Another matter spoken to and duly recorded.
THE COURT: All right, Ms. Page, Ms. Garcia, we’re going to resume.
In this application, the Court considers the criminal history of Mr. Wice as set out in his criminal record and the Reasons of Justice Quinlan and as properly admissible in the form of transcripts or the Reasons referring to those offences based on transcripts before that court, and, as well, the admissions by Mr. Wice, the predicate offences for the long-term supervision order, the psychiatric reports by Dr. Rootenberg and Dr. Pallandi, the subsequent notes by psychologists who dealt with Mr. Wice while he was on the LTSO, the Reasons of Justice Quinlan related to the LTSO order, Mr. Wice’s response or lack thereof to opportunities for treatment for anger management as it relates to the concern regarding risk and the antisocial personality disorder, breaches while he was on the LTSO and subsequent criminal conduct represented on his criminal record.
Summary of Evidence, Findings of Fact Regarding the Basis for Grounds for Fear Test
The Court would note that the large majority of evidence before this Court upon which Detective Marks relies upon to found the grounds for fear is evidence before the court on the original dangerous offender application and the Reasons of Justice Quinlan in relation to the court’s LTSO designation.
Prior to the hearing, Mr. Wice had been in custody since 2008. The predicate offences took place on October 20th, 2008. This took place before Justice Quinlan as a hearing on April 25th, 2012, and the court issued its Reasons in an oral judgment on May 18th, 2012, reported at 2012 ONSC 3363.
In that case, although the Crown originally applied to have Mr. Wice declared a dangerous offender, the Crown modified that position after receiving the psychiatric reports of Dr. Rootenberg and Dr. Pallandi, both of which are before this Court. The parties agreed at the time and the court imposed a fixed sentence in the penitentiary and subjected Mr. Wice to an LTSO order for ten years.
The court noted at paragraph 19 of its Reasons as follows:
“At the time of preparation of his report in February 2011, Dr. Rootenberg stated that, “[W]hile the ‘possibility’ of successful treatment and alternative sanctions exist, they appear to be more theoretical than practical. As a result of the further interview with Mr. Wice and the review of institutional records from his time in remand, Dr. Rootenberg’s opinion at the time of testifying was that there is now a reasonable expectation that the public can be adequately protected against the commission by Mr. Wice of a serious personal injury offence so long as ‘highly vigilant measures’ are put in place to manage him in the community.”
This Court would note that the bulk of information relating to Mr. Wice pre-dates the application and stems from the material before the court that placed him on the LTSO.
The report of Dr. Rootenberg is the most comprehensive psychiatric report and the report of Dr. Pallandi is the second more comprehensive psychiatric report prepared in relation to Mr. Wice. There are no other psychiatric reports of that nature and of that depth. Since that date, the material before the Court relates to the behaviour of Mr. Wice while on the LTSO, including any breaches, any subsequent offences and whether he’s taken the treatment, counselling or rehabilitation recommended by Dr. Rootenberg. The psychiatric update following the LTSO imposition is very brief in comparison.
Conclusion
The Court finds that Mr. Wice was found to be at a very high risk to reoffend at the time of his LTSO designation. Significantly, Justice Quinlan noted the need for treatment for anger management. The Court on this application has a significant concern that it does not appear that Mr. Wice has been properly treated for anger management and emotions management during the time he has been in the community on the LTSO, given his lack of amenability to taking that treatment.
Accordingly, this Court has an ongoing concern that he has not been properly treated for anger management and emotions management, which is what this Court finds to be a trigger for future offences of violence for Mr. Wice.
The Court finds that given the context of the evidence before this Court related to Mr. Wice and his prior psychiatric assessments, his diagnoses as set out herein, the criminal record for offences of violence and the predicate offences, together with the subsequent offence of violence, and the evidence of breaches of the LTSO, lead to this Court’s finding that the fear of Detective Marks is not only genuinely a subjective belief by this officer, but also the basis for a reasonable belief, it is objectively based, as it relates to offences of a serious personal injury offence.
While the defence relied upon the position it took in submissions regarding the subsequent offence of violence for which Mr. Wice was given a conviction and sentence, the fact remains that it is indicative of Mr. Wice lacking in restraint or self-control over what was a response to a triggering event of a concern regarding a dog off a leash at a family barbeque and led to, after two other men became involved, him arming himself with a weapon and engaging in an act of serious violence causing serious injury to the victim. It was not a case where self-defence succeeded. He was convicted and sentenced in relation to that matter. Even if the Court considered the position that Mr. Wice was grabbing the weapon in self-defence of two males present at a barbeque, it clearly was excessive force and indicative of his exaggerated response of using excessive force to commit an offence of a serious personal injury offence.
As courts have said, the best indicator of future ability to predict a person’s behaviour is past behaviour. In this case, the Court has not only the background and criminal record together with the predicate offence, it also has the subsequent offence while he was on the LTSO. Mr. Wice has not been properly treated for anger management and this puts him in a position where the Court finds that the belief of Detective Marks that he will commit a serious personal injury offence is reasonably based.
Accordingly, the Court will make an order that Mr. Wice be placed on a recognizance for a period of time. As set out above, the maximum period would be two years from this date. The defence has asked the Court to consider the period of time over which he has been governed by a strict bail after being charged with the recent offence. The Court would note in that regard that he has been subject to terms of bail to this point in time.
The Court is of the view, taking into account the terms of his bail to this point in time, that the Court will impose a recognizance which will be eight months in length from this point in time.
The Court is going to note the following:
As it relates to what the Court might have been able to order as terms of supervision, the Court is specifically going to address what it read out earlier as far as the terms the Court is not going to impose.
One moment....
The Court is not going to ask that he be required to wear an electronic monitoring device.
The Court is not going to order a term that he return to and remain at his place of residence at specified times. That is separate and apart from any other bail order that he may be subject to now as part of his house arrest. The Court is just dealing with the recognizance it will be imposing and the terms that it will be imposing.
The Court is not going to make a condition that he provide for the purpose of analysis a sample of a bodily substance at particular intervals referred to on occasions as urinalysis or other bodily substance which would potentially detect the consumption of drugs, alcohol or other intoxicating substances.
The Court is not going to impose a term that he have contact with his children only in accordance with Native Child and Family Services instructions. This is not merited and it is not appropriate, so the Court is not going to make that order.
The Court is not going to make a condition that he have no contact directly or indirectly by any physical, electronic or other means with any of his prior victims or their families and to not attend within 100 metres of their residence, educational institution, place of employment or other place where they may be. The Court is not making that order.
The Court is not going to make it a condition that he notify the Toronto Police Service, namely Detective Constable Scott Peters directly, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks directly, or their designate, at least 24 hours prior to leaving the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto and notify them of your travel itinerary and destination plans.
Terms and Conditions Imposed
The Court is going to impose the following terms and conditions:
Report weekly, or as directed, specifically every Tuesday in person or as directed, to the Toronto Police Service, 40 College Street, Toronto, specifically to Detective Constable Scott Peters, 5119, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks, 9211, or their designate, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 1 p.m.
Report any change of address or telephone number within 24 hours of any such change to the Toronto Police Service, specifically Detective Constable Scott Peters, 5119, directly at 416-808-7452, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks, 9211, directly at 416-808-7456, or their designate.
Report your employment status and any change in that employment status to the Toronto Police Service, specifically to Detective Constable Scott Peters, 5119, directly at 416-808-7452, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks, 9211, directly at 416-808-7456, or their designate.
Do not possess any weapons or firearms as described by the Criminal Code, nor any ammunition or explosives. The Court would indicate that term is required given the concern with respect to the serious personal injury offence. The Court also has the concern given the recent conviction for which he used a weapon, which was a crowbar used as a weapon/
S. WICE: That was ten years ago.
THE COURT: Next:
Abstain from the purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs except for cannabis products.
You are not to enter into any intimate relationship, cohabitation or marriage with a female until that person has been identified to the Toronto Police Service, namely to Detective Constable Scott Peters, 5119, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks, 9211, or their designate, and there has been an opportunity provided to inform that person of your criminal history. The Court would indicate that it has considered this based on the prior domestic criminal record and as well the concerns of Ms. Boyd that had been reported to Ms. Rawluk.
You are to carry on your person at all times while outside your place of residence a copy of these conditions and produce them upon demand of a peace officer.
You are to participate in a treatment programme for anger management and emotions management as directed by Detective Constable Scott Peters, 5119, or Detective Constable Alexandra Marks, 9211, or their designate, in relation to that term.
S. WICE: May I ask how I’m supposed to carry that term out...
THE COURT: Mr. Wice...
S. WICE: ...considering...
THE COURT: ...I’m in the middle of....
S. WICE: ...I have a job and children that I have to raise?
THE COURT: Mr. Wice, I’m in the middle of giving Reasons.
S. WICE: Oh, okay, so if I have to quit my job to so my kids will do your thing, that’s okay. Suffer.
THE COURT: (Continuing):
You are to -- when you attend any assessment or treatment...
S. WICE: This is a farce, bro.
THE COURT: (Continuing):
...or counselling for these sessions, to obtain from the person who is leading the session proof of your attendance at that session. You are also to provide to the two police officers the Court has named “summaries of the content of each session” to one of those police officers at each subsequent appointment you have reporting to them.
S. WICE: Crazy.
THE COURT: Are there any questions, Ms. ....
S. WICE: Yeah, all kinds of questions.
THE COURT: No, I’m directing this to counsel...
S. WICE: You won’t hear me talk, right?
THE COURT: No, I’m not.
S. WICE: You won’t like what I have to say.
THE COURT: Mr. Wice, I’m going to address your counsel.
S. WICE: I bet you will.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions, counsel, with respect to this?
S. WICE: Yeah, of course.
A. PAGE: Court’s brief indulgence.
S. WICE: Exactly about that.
(A. Page speaks to S. Wice.)
S. WICE: You call this justice? Crazy. This is a farce. Believe it.
A. PAGE: I just -- with respect to the notification....
THE COURT: Oh, sorry, there’s supposed to be a term also, I just left this out at the end, Keep...
S. WICE: Of course, you forgot. I mean...
THE COURT: ...the peace...
S. WICE: ...in your old age, you must have. (You’re (indiscernible).)
THE COURT: ...and be of good behaviour is also going to be in there. Yes, Ms. Page, sorry.
A. PAGE: With respect to the requirement -- the requirement of changing -- notification of change of employment, I just -- to clarify, there’s no -- it’s only a change of employment or address or phone number. There’s nothing about travelling outside of Toronto or anything like that, correct? Or did I not hear it?
THE COURT: That’s right. I told you I was not going to impose that one.
A. PAGE: Thank you.
THE COURT: I looked at it and I didn’t feel that it was justified.
A. PAGE: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Are there any other questions?
A. PAGE: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I’m going to suggest, Ms. Page, that maybe the best procedure now might be, if it meets with your approval, that you can be excused from the courtroom with your client for a few minutes while the court staff finish and finalize the form.
A. PAGE: Sure. Thank you. And I’d be grateful to receive a copy as well, just in case there’s any questions.
THE COURT: Well, that’s -- he needs to sign it.
A. PAGE: Right. But....
THE COURT: But I’m just saying, and if you want to speak with him, for example, that could happen outside the courtroom and then you could come back in the courtroom with him when it’s ready.
A. PAGE: Yeah, I can do that. I just meant if I could also have a copy when we leave here...
THE COURT: Oh, absolutely.
A. PAGE: ...if the clerk could make two copies.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
A. PAGE: That’d be great.
THE COURT: Now, is there an office where you have an interview space where you can take him near the courtroom?
A. PAGE: I — there’s an anteroom just outside the courtroom.
S. WICE: Why do I need that?
THE COURT: All right. So that I’ll maybe have one of the clerks come and find you there.
A. PAGE: Sure. So, I’ll just be outside to the...
S. WICE: I’ve got all kinds of questions.
A. PAGE: ...to the left when you walk outside.
S. WICE: She can hear me.
A. PAGE: Thank you, Your Honour.
S. WICE: And you call yourself a justice. My ass.
Electronic Certificate of Transcript
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Ellen Simpson certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of:
R. v. Steven Noel WICE, in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, Ontario taken from Recording 4810 1101 20241122 114552 6 BROWNBE.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
January 24, 2025
(Date) (Electronic Signature of Authorized Person(s))
9598809248
(Authorized court
if applicable)
Ontario, Canada
(Province of signing)