ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: I-621-771
DATE: 20140822

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

landon williams

Sona Advani, for the Crown
Breese Davies, for Mr. Williams

HEARD: August 15, 2014

Trotter J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] Landon Williams was arrested as he walked down a busy street in the City of Toronto. When he was searched, the police discovered a handgun, a box of ammunition, a small amount of marijuana and two cell phones. Although the ammunition was the right calibre for the gun, it was the wrong size. The ammunition could not be fired from the gun.

[2] Mr. Williams was charged with and convicted of possession of a firearm without a licence (Criminal Code, s. 92(1)), possession of a firearm without a registration certificate (s. 91(1)), carrying a concealed weapon (s. 90(1)), as well as three counts of breach of recognizance (involving possession of more than one cellular phone, possession of a weapon and possession of ammunition) (s. 145(3)). The facts surrounding these offences are set out more fully in an earlier decision: R. v. Williams, 2014 ONSC 3005.

[3] At the time of the offences, Mr. Williams was 19 years old. He is now 22. Mr. Williams has a youth court record, stretching back to 2008, for the following offences:

• 2008 Possession of a Schedule I drug
• 2008 Possession of cocaine
• 2010 Possession of a Schedule I drug
• 2010 Possession of a Schedule II drug
• 2010 Possession of a Schedule I drug

Apart from 12 days of pre-sentence custody (PSC) on his third finding of guilt above, Mr. Williams has not received a custodial sentence for his offending.

[4] The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) reveals that Mr. Williams had an unhappy upbringing in his mother’s home. He enjoyed a more positive relationship with his father who continues to support his son. Mr. Williams did not like school and, consequently, did poorly. However, he is now more motivated and has been working towards obtaining high school credits. It is Mr. Williams’ goal to attend university. Mr. Williams has a very young child from a previous relationship. He is currently in a new supportive relationship.

[5] Mr. Williams has been involved with drugs since 2007. In 2010, Mr. Williams was assaulted, resulting in a fractured jaw. In the aftermath of this injury, he became addicted to prescription medication. He turned to dealing in drugs to support his own addiction and to make money. He reports being clean and sober for three years as a result of these charges. A report by Dr. Henry Moller indicates that he authorized a medical marijuana certificate for Mr. Williams to address the chronic pain from his broken jaw.

[6] A psychological assessment prepared for this case reveals that Mr. Williams is considered a moderate risk to re-offend. As the author of the report noted: “Specifically, some of his risk factors include employment, education, substance abuse history, and little positive peer social involvement. However, these factors are susceptible to change and therefore with appropriate monitoring, and supervision and intervention, his risk could likely decrease.”

[7] Mr. Williams is attempting to address these risk factors. He has received some counseling through the John Howard Society. There is an offer of a job through his girlfriend’s uncle. Moreover, his girlfriend’s mother, a friend and a youth counselor at his church have written letters of support. All report that Mr. Williams has made positive changes and that he has a genuine desire to improve his life circumstances. They all pledge future support.

[8] The Crown submits that a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Ms. Advani argues that Mr. Williams should be imprisoned for two years for the firearm offences and one year consecutive for the collection of bail breaches. On behalf of Mr. Williams, Ms. Davies argues that this offending can be adequately addressed through a conditional sentence order. Alternatively, she submits that a reformatory term would be fit.

[9] In terms of the correct approach to sentencing in gun cases, I heed the following direction from the Court of Appeal in R. v. Brown, 2010 ONCA 745, [2010] O.J. No. 4707 (C.A.), at para. 14: "Handguns are an all too prevalent menace in the Greater Toronto Area. First and foremost, the sentences imposed for firearms offences must further the sentencing goals of denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public." See also R. v. Danvers (2005), 2005 30044 (ON CA), 199 C.C.C. (3d) 490 (Ont. C.A.). This approach to sentencing in handgun cases can be found in numerous decisions of this Court: see R. v. Scarlett, 2013 ONSC 562, R. v. Williams, 2013 ONSC 1855, R. v. Peterkin, 2013 ONSC 2116, R. v. Ellis, 2013 ONSC 3092, R. v. Dehaney, 2012 ONSC 3014, R. v. Gobire, 2013 ONSC 3073 and R. v. Johnson, 2013 ONSC 4217. I appreciate that many of these cases involved loaded handguns, which, at the time, were subject to mandatory minimum sentences. While the range of sentence in loaded handgun cases is more severe, the goals of sentencing are the same when dealing with handguns that are not loaded.

[10] Although denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public are paramount in gun cases, rehabilitation is an important factor that must also be considered. An appropriate sentence can only be determined after a careful consideration of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[11] There are numerous aggravating features of Mr. Williams’ offending behaviour. I note the following:

• Mr. Williams carried the firearm and ammunition in a public place, exposing the public to danger;

• Mr. Williams also had a small amount of drugs on his person at the time. This is exacerbated by Mr. Williams’ Youth Court record for drug offences; and

• Mr. Williams was on bail at the time. This factor has only a limited role to play as an aggravating feature of the firearms offences because the Crown seeks a consecutive sentence for the breach charges. In other words, this circumstance will not be counted twice to Mr. Williams’ detriment. Still, it must be said that Mr. Williams completely flouted the order by breaching three important conditions at the same time.

[12] There are mitigating factors on the other side of the equation, such as the following:

• Mr. Williams is a youthful offender. This will be his first sentence as an adult;

• As noted above, the PSR is positive;

• There was no evidence that Mr. Williams had ever used or pointed the firearm at anyone. On the other hand, there is no evidence that he was aware that the ammunition was not suitable for the gun;

• While Mr. Williams did not enter a plea of guilty, his case was litigated on the basis of a fairly narrow legal issue. When this was not resolved in his favour, he made appropriate admissions and did not resist findings of guilt on the facts. He is entitled to some credit for taking responsibility for his actions in this manner; and

• Mr. Williams has support in the community.

[13] Mr. Williams has made a genuine effort to re-focus his life and to address the issues that are related to his offending. This is clear from the PSR, the letters of those who support him and from his allocution at the sentencing hearing. These are all factors that are encouraging and which speak to Mr. Williams’ rehabilitative potential. However, they do not eclipse the seriousness of the offences, nor do they mute the importance of general deterrence and denunciation.

[14] I have concluded that it is not necessary to send Mr. Williams to the penitentiary to give effect to these important sentencing objectives. At the same time, while the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx (2000), 2000 SCC 5, 140 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) has said that a conditional sentence order is capable of serving the goals of denunciation and deterrence, I am not persuaded that these goals will be achieved with a conditional sentence in this case: see R. v. Jones (2005), 2005 22449 (ON CA), 198 C.C.C. (3d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Beckford, [2008] O.J. No. 1781 (S.C.J.), and R. v. Panton, [2008] O.J. No. 3546 (S.C.J.). Given the widely recognized problem of handguns in our community, it would convey the wrong message if Mr. Williams were simply sent home as punishment. Adding a community service condition to the mix would still fall short of the mark. This type of offending must be addressed by a jail term.

[15] In all of the circumstances, and given the important strides that Mr. Williams has made, a sentence of 18 months is appropriate for the firearms offences in Counts 1 and 3 (to be served concurrently). In addition, I sentence Mr. Williams to a further three months’ imprisonment for breaching the terms of his bail. As I have noted above, he breached three terms at the same time. The most important terms prohibited him from possessing firearms or ammunition. This is an aggravating circumstance that warrants further punishment. I impose sentences of three months on each of those counts (Counts #5, 6 and 7), concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the sentences for the gun offences. The total sentence is 21 months’ imprisonment.

[16] Mr. Williams served 11 days in PSC. Crediting him on a 1.5: 1 basis, I deduct 17 days from the total sentence. Moreover, Mr. Williams was on restrictive bail terms, including strict house arrest for 15 months. This condition was relaxed on two occasions to permit Mr. Williams to see his daughter and to work. I reduce the sentence by three months to reflect the hardship inherent in these conditions. Consequently, Mr. Williams will serve a sentence of 17 months and 13 days. Following his release from custody, Mr. Williams will be subject to a probation order for two years on the statutory terms. He will also report to a probation officer as required. The order will include a condition that he refrain from possessing any firearm or ammunition.

[17] I make a s. 109 order for life. For DNA databank purposes, Mr. Williams has only been convicted of secondary designated offences. However, given the seriousness of the offences, I have determined that it is appropriate that he provide a sample. Lastly, given the fact that he is unemployed and has a small child, I waive the victim surcharge. Lastly, I impose a conditional stay on Count #2 based on the principles in R. v. Kienapple (1975), 1974 14 (SCC), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 524 (S.C.C.).

___________________________ Trotter J.

Released: August 22, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: I-621-771
DATE: 20140822

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

landon williams

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Trotter J.

Released: August 22, 2014