CITATION: R. v. Reid, 2015 ONSC 1919
COURT FILE NO.: CR/14/40000/4010000
DATE: 20150326
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
MARILYN REID
Counsel:
Alison MacPherson, for the Crown
Calvin Barry, for Ms. Reid
HEARD: January 12 and February 27, 2015
Reasons for sentence
Kelly J.
[1] Ms. Marilyn Reid pleaded guilty to 8 counts of aggravated assault arising from unauthorized injections into the buttocks of eight victims. Counsel have agreed that the facts regarding a ninth victim could be considered for purposes of sentencing.
[2] The facts giving rise to the pleas are fairly straightforward. Ms. Reid was neither authorized to perform cosmetic surgery nor was she permitted to give injections. However, she did both: injecting silicone into the buttocks of nine victims, causing physical harm to each of them.
[3] Ms. Reid had created a website called pmmainjection.com.[^1] It advertised that Ms. Reid could enhance buttocks (amongst other things) by injecting a substance called PMMA. Neither PMMA, nor silicone (which Ms. Reid did inject), are approved by Health Canada for cosmetic surgery. There is, however, a black market for PMMA.
[4] Interested parties were asked to fill out a request on the website. Ms. Reid would respond via e-mail with a price list. If a person wished to pursue the service, Ms. Reid would phone to arrange a meeting place: usually in the person’s residence or a hotel room. It was a cash only business and the Court is aware that, at the very least, nine women engaged Ms. Reid’s services. All nine women suffered bodily harm as a result.
[5] When Ms. Reid’s conduct was brought to the attention of authorities, she was charged criminally. Ms. Reid participated in a preliminary inquiry and the matter was set for trial. Within weeks of the trial date, Ms. Reid pleaded guilty to the eight offences before the Court pursuant to an Agreed Statement of Facts (attached hereto as Appendix “A”).
[6] Ms. Reid now appears before me for sentencing. At the time of the plea, Crown Counsel suggested that the appropriate sentence was 8 to 10 years and the plea inquiry was conducted on that basis. At the time of sentencing, Crown Counsel sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years in custody.
[7] Counsel for Ms. Reid submits that a suspended sentence recognizing the time Ms. Reid has already served in presentence custody (approximately 22 months or 660 days) at an enhanced basis (33 months), together with probation and 240 community service hours is appropriate. Both Counsel agree that Ms. Reid should receive credit for time served in presentence custody on an enhanced basis in accordance with the principles in R. v. Summers.[^2] Accordingly, Ms. Reid will receive credit of 33 months for presentence custody.
The Legal Framework
[8] The Criminal Code[^3] provides guidance on sentencing for the offence of aggravated assault. Section 268 provides that anyone who commits an aggravated assault is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
[9] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the purposes of sentencing to be considered. They are:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[10] Bearing the purposes of sentencing in mind, I must also take into consideration the following: that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. The problem in this particular case is that, to the knowledge of the Court, there is no sentencing precedent where similar offences have been committed in similar circumstances.
[11] Crown counsel submits that there is some guidance provided in those cases where the convicted person has transmitted HIV to the victims. She says that the range of sentences in such cases is 2 to 4 years. Since there are eight convictions in this case, Crown Counsel submits that the appropriate sentence would be in the range of 16 to 32 years, but that in consideration of the totality principle, the sentence should be reduced to 10 to 12 years. I do not agree.
[12] While I agree that the HIV cases may provide some guidance in sentencing Ms. Reid, I do not believe that the appropriate sentence should be 10 to 12 years. After considering the principles of sentencing, including the facts of this case and the circumstances of the offender, I find the appropriate sentence is 8 years. What follows are my reasons.
The Aggravating Factors, Generally
[13] I will deal first with the factors that I consider to be aggravating generally. I will then deal with those that are relevant to each of the victims.
[14] When one considers the facts of this case, there is really nothing mitigating about the offences themselves. As such, I have attached the Agreed Statement of Facts as Appendix “A” to these reasons. The aggravating factors I consider applicable to all counts are as follows:
a. Ms. Reid’s website offered injections of PMMA. Despite the fact that PMMA is unauthorized in Canada, that is what the victims intended to purchase. However, that is not what they got. Ms. Reid injected silicone into the buttocks of the victims: a product not authorized for such purpose and used unbeknownst to the victims. This is particularly significant because when the victims sought medical assistance, they could not assist the caregivers in identifying what had, in fact, been injected.
b. The Regulated Health Professions Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 (Ontario) regulates who may give an injection: only a doctor or a nurse acting under the orders of a doctor. Some pharmacists in Ontario are permitted to administer flu vaccine under certain conditions and with the approval of the Ministry of Health. At the time of injecting the victims, Ms. Reid was not a doctor, a nurse nor a pharmacist permitted to perform injections of any kind.
c. A buttock augmentation procedure is considered to be plastic surgery and must only be done by an accredited doctor in a medical facility. Ms. Reid was not a doctor and she did not perform the buttock augmentations in a medical facility. She did so in the homes of her victims or in hotel rooms. Neither of these locations could remotely be considered a medical facility nor sterile.
d. There are long term consequences to the victims. It has been explained by medical experts that foreign material should never be injected into the body because it cannot be removed if the body has an adverse reaction to it.
e. Several of the victims suffered serious infections because of the silicone injected. A number of the victims were initially misdiagnosed and referred to various specialists because the doctors treating them were unable to conclude what had been injected into their bodies.
f. The victims will always have to monitor their health because a fever could be a sign that their bodies are rejecting the injected material. If they develop fevers, they must alert their doctors and have a blood test to ensure they are not developing abysses which could have serious and possibly fatal consequences.
g. Ms. Reid injected silicone knowing that such injections could severely affect the health of the victims.
h. In committing the aggravated assaults, Ms. Reid has wounded, maimed, disfigured and endangered the lives of the victims. There were nine victims and eight convictions.
i. The offences were committed over a lengthy period of time between April 2011 to August 2012.
j. The offences appear to have been motivated by greed.
[15] I will now highlight the relevant factors regarding each of the complainants.
The Specific Aggravating Factors
[16] I find the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. N.C. injected between August 23 and August 27, 2012:
a. Ms. Reid performed the procedure in the apartment of Ms. N.C.. During it, she injected Ms. A.C.’s buttocks with a thick gel-like liquid substance which she claimed was PMMA, a product not authorized for such a procedure.
b. Ms. Reid described the benefits of PMMA to Ms. A.C., but did not provide any information about the hazards of treatment or the standard of care required. Even if she had described the hazards, it would not have mattered because she injected silicone, not PMMA.
c. Ms. A.C. paid Ms. Reid $4,600 in cash for the injections. Following the procedure, her buttock was not changing shape so Ms. Reid induced her to increase her purchase. Ms. A.C. eventually paid another $2,600, for a total payment to Ms. Reid of $7,200. Ms. Reid injected 500 cc’s of silicone into each buttock of Ms. A.C..
d. Ms. A.C. immediately felt ill following the procedure. She spent the next 24 hours on her stomach as recommended by Ms. Reid. She felt very sore and was deceptively told by Ms. Reid that her soreness was “normal”.
e. On Monday, August 27, 2012 Ms. A.C. could barely walk and felt very hot as if a fever was imminent. She was eventually taken to Toronto Western Hospital. A CT scan revealed that Ms. A.C. had tracks of air within the fat and muscle in her buttocks, which could be a sign of infection or could be as a result of the injections. The surgeon, using a needle, removed the air as well as the gel.
f. Unfortunately, Ms. A.C.’s symptoms worsened and she was readmitted to hospital. She underwent surgery. The surgeon discovered pus and a clear gel (approximately 400ml) inside her buttocks.
g. Thereafter, Ms. A.C. was treated with antibiotics for another four weeks intravenously. The doctor was unable to remove all of the material during surgery. A medical doctor concluded that Ms. A.C. could have died from such complications had she not sought medical treatment when she did.
h. Ms. A.C. was absent from work for several months. She has been disfigured by the injections and the surgeries needed to treat them. She had to endure physiotherapy to regain strength in her legs.
[17] I find the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. A.C. injected between August 23 and August 27, 2012 (Ms. N.C.’s sister):
a. Following two procedures performed by Ms. Reid, Ms. A.C. began to feel sore and have pain on her left side. She could not cross her legs or bend comfortably.
b. Ms. A.C. eventually was admitted to hospital on November 27, 2012 to have the fluid injected by Ms. Reid removed from her body as her pain was becoming progressively worse. When admitted, she had an abscess on her left leg.
[18] I find the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. J.A.J.A. injected on June 6, 2012:
a. On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Ms. Reid attended Ms. J.A.’s apartment in Toronto. Ms. J.A. agreed to pay Ms. Reid $3,500 in cash in exchange for her services. Ms. Reid commented that Ms. J.A. had a flat rear end and so she would need 600 cc’s of the product for best results. The new price was $4,300, less a discount of $500.
b. Ms. Reid told Ms. J.A. that there were no detrimental effects associated with the procedure and that, in fact, she and her sisters had had the injections. She represented that nothing had ever happened to them. She said that the product had been used in hospitals for over 20 years and was used in accident victims. When asked if anything bad could happen, Ms. Reid misrepresented the risks saying: “No, just a nice plump butt.”
c. Following the injections, Ms. Reid took a picture of Ms. J.A.’s buttocks. Ms. J.A. believes that such a photo was shown during a news conference regarding Ms. Reid and on her website. This, of course, was done without her consent.
d. Following the injections, Ms. J.A. developed an infection. She went to the emergency department in a hospital. A week later, she noticed more build-up of the substance under her skin on both of her buttocks, but more so on her right buttock. Three weeks after the procedure and around the beginning of July 2013 she went to Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. She was diagnosed with an infection and was referred to a plastic surgeon. She was prescribed antibiotics.
e. The next day she went to see the plastic surgeon. He confirmed the infection and told her to continue taking the antibiotics. She was in so much pain she could barely walk. For two weeks she limped and could not even bend over to tie her shoe laces.
f. Ms. J.A. saw the doctor again. The doctor drained the pus and gel, but it continued to ooze for about a week. One month later the infection appeared to have subsided. In mid -September 2012 she developed yet another infection and was prescribed more antibiotics. In November 2012 her right buttock was drained again.
[19] I find the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. K.M.K.M. injected between April 1 and April 30, 2012:
a. After an e-mail exchange with Ms. Reid, Ms. K.M. inquired of Ms. Reid if she was a doctor. Ms. Reid stated that she had been a doctor in her own country, but had not obtained her Canadian certification. This was never proven.
b. Ms. Reid extoled the benefits of PMMA injections. She told Ms. K.M. that the result would look great and it was painless – both significant misrepresentations: especially because she was injecting silicone and not PMMA.
c. Ms. K.M. met Ms. Reid at the Howard Johnson Hotel in Aurora and paid Ms. Reid $4,800 in cash up front. At no point did Ms. Reid explain the ramifications of the procedure to Ms. K.M..
d. Ms. K.M. immediately felt pain in her right buttock when the procedure began. She stayed the night in the hotel and drove home the next morning. Her buttocks remained sore for a few weeks and the pain became intolerable. The pain and loss of flexibility prevented Ms. K.M. from doing the day to day things she was used to doing. For example, she could not exercise.
e. Sometime in October 2012, Ms. K.M. suddenly started to experience chest pains, fevers and migraine headaches. She went to a walk-in clinic. The clinic attributed her symptoms to anxiety.
f. On November 16, 2012 Ms. K.M. saw a press conference involving Ms. Reid’s arrest and criminal charges. She immediately recognized Ms. Reid as the person who injected her with what she “thought” was PMMA.
g. As a result of seeing the press conference, Ms. K.M. attended her doctor’s office. Medical testing revealed that cysts had formed and she had fluid in both of her buttocks. She had significant deep infections and she underwent surgery on December 6, 2012. She was confined to bed for one week after release from hospital.
h. From December 6, 2012 to January 21, 2013 Ms. K.M. was not able to work and lost her wages as a result. She required home care: a nurse went to her house daily to change the dressing on her wound. Ms. K.M. may require further treatments in future.
[20] I find the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. M.B. and Ms. M.C. both injected on April 25, 2011:
a. Ms. M.C. and Ms. M.B. met with Ms. Reid after negotiating a price for her service and choosing a location. Ms. Reid said that she used real PMMA and not silicone as that would be “bad” for one’s health. She said that her product was good, the procedure was safe and there would be no problems. Ms. Reid represented that she was a nurse in Europe and had performed this type of procedure for a long time in Europe. Such representations were untrue.
b. Ms. M.C. and Ms. M.B. paid $2,800 each for the procedure.
c. Ms. M.C. had significant pain during the procedure. She developed a fever within a half hour and within a couple of days, Ms. M.C. was hospitalized for 3 weeks. She was unable to work for over one year.
d. Ms. M.C. was told that she could have died as a result of the complications she was suffering from the injections.
e. Ms. M.B. only had a small discoloration at the injection sites.
[21] Ms. M.C. is the only victim who provided an impact statement to the Court. In it she described the affect this procedure has had on her life. She was a professional dancer, but is unable to do that anymore. Her mother had to take a second job to assist her with her rent, groceries, etc., because Ms. M.C. is unable to work. She has lost motivation and has suffered a significant amount of pain. In November 2014, Ms. M.C. underwent surgery. The surgeon was able to remove the industrial silicone, but observed that the injections caused significant damage, including “a big abscess”. She remains anxious and traumatized as the result of Ms. Reid’s injections.
[22] I consider the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. M.R. injected between May 1 and May 15, 2011:
a. In April 2011, M.R. contacted Ms. Reid to have a buttock augmentation procedure. Ms. Reid insisted on going to M.R.’s home or a hotel. In May 2011, Ms. M.R. met Ms. Reid in a hotel room in Mississauga.
b. Ms. Reid stated that she had a nursing background from Spain and the product she was using was PMMA. She stated that she had been doing the procedure for a couple of years and every one of her clients was happy with the results. All of this was intended, of course, to induce Ms. M.R. to purchase Ms. Reid’s services.
c. When asked about possible complications or dangers of the injections, Ms. Reid replied that her clients had not had any, save for one who had not rested on the day of the procedure. That client had suffered an infection and had to take antibiotics. Despite that, Ms. Reid said that the client had another procedure. M.R. was instructed to lie down for twenty-four hours after the procedure to prevent such complications.
d. M.R. paid Ms. Reid $1,800. The entire procedure took about one hour and Ms. Reid took photos of her when finished. M.R. noticed leakage of an oily substance after the procedure was completed.
e. M.R. developed complications within 48 hours and was bedridden for 3 days. She had a fever. Her left buttock was deep red, had small lumps on it and was hot to the touch. Four days later she went to a walk-in clinic and was told that she had cellulitis.
f. A second infection occurred 2 to 3 weeks later. She returned to the doctor and an ultrasound revealed a granuloma and an abscessed infection. She, again, was prescribed antibiotics.
g. M.R. visited Ms. Reid’s website after her procedure and believes that a photo of her buttocks had been placed on the site without her consent.
[23] I consider the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. S.N. injected on May 18, 2012:
a. Following research and an agreement, Ms. Reid went to Ms. S.N.’s home to perform the injections. Ms. S.N. was nervous about the procedure and said she wanted to cancel it, but Ms. Reid told her everything would be “okay”. Ms. Reid represented that she had been a plastic surgeon in Spain, but could not work legally in Canada. (These credentials were never proven to be true in the proceedings before the Court.)
b. Ms. Reid reassured Ms. S.N. that everything would be “fine”. To convince her of this, Ms. Reid displayed her own buttocks because she said she had done the procedure to herself. Ms. S.N. asked for a sample of the PMMA just in case something went wrong. Ms. Reid left her 2 empty bottles of “Hydra-Gel”.
c. The day after the injections, Ms. S.N. was in discomfort. She attempted to get assistance from Ms. Reid but received none. Ms. S.N. called an ambulance. She brought one of the empty containers to the hospital. The contents of the container tested and it was identified as silicone ‑ used in the 1990’s.
d. Ms. S.N. was admitted to the hospital with an infection in her right buttock. When discharged, Ms. S.N. was still receiving intravenous antibiotics. She received home care from a visiting nurse and was bedridden.
e. Ms. S.N. had to be readmitted to hospital and underwent surgery to treat the infection. She was released and readmitted a third time. She received home care after the last admission for three months. Ms. S.N. has had to attend at the hospital for treatment at least four times since then. She visits her doctor once a month to be monitored. She has been told that she will continue to have health consequences from the procedure for the rest of her life.
[24] I consider the following to be the aggravating factors regarding Ms. S.S.:[^4]
a. Ms. Reid advised Ms. S.S. that the product she was injecting was pure PMMA and that she had performed the service for years. Ms. Reid explained the product was from Columbia and had no side effects. Ms. Reid sold the injections by the bottle and Ms. S.S. paid her $5,000 in cash.
b. Ms. S.S. had one syringe injected on the first occasion and then a second syringe a couple of days later. They met at Ms. S.S.’s home for this purpose. Ms. Reid explained her experience with body fillers and stated there were no side effects: that she had performed the injections on herself and the product was safe.
c. During the procedure, some of the equipment malfunctioned. Ms. S.S. suggested that they stop, but Ms. Reid reassured Ms. S.S. and they continued. Ms. Reid told Ms. S.S. to keep the area clean and to wear a tight fitting garment. It was arranged that the procedure would be repeated a few days later.
d. After the second procedure Ms. Reid used crazy glue and a band aid to cover the incision to prevent the solution from leaking out.
e. Ms. S.S. told Ms. Reid she was not feeling well after the injections. Ms. Reid advised her to take an antibiotic. Ms. S.S. has had two intravenous antibiotic treatments at Sunnybrook Hospital. She has a scar from having the infection drained and the area is lumpy. She continues to have leakage from her injection sites and continues to experience frequent infections.
The Mitigating Factors
[25] I will now turn to the mitigating factors on sentencing.
[26] I find the following to be the mitigating factors:
a. Ms. Reid is 50 years of age and has no criminal record. She comes before the Court as a first time offender.
b. While on bail initially, Ms. Reid committed no further offences. I am advised that Ms. Reid faces no outstanding charges at this time.
c. Ms. Reid pleaded guilty to all eight offences before the Court. She admitted the facts regarding a ninth complainant. Although she did participate in a preliminary hearing and although she pleaded guilty just weeks before her trial date, the plea provided certainty of result and saved court resources.
d. The plea also prevented the necessity of the victims having to testify at trial. Crown Counsel advised that the victims were anxious about the trial and the plea should have provided some relief in that regard.
e. The plea of guilt is a sign of remorse itself, but Ms. Reid expressed this in open court prior to the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding.
f. Ms. Reid has had a troubled childhood. She was born with both male and female sexual organs. She had sexual “affirmation” surgery at age 7 and was raised as a female. She was ridiculed and bullied because of her “deep” voice.
g. Ms. Reid says that she was abused by her father, although her mother disputes that allegation.
h. Ms. Reid was happily married for many years until her separation approximately five years ago. She was not so lucky with a boyfriend she became involved with in Canada. He was drug addicted and mentally unstable. He abused her, breaking her leg on one occasion. He was incarcerated as a result. Ms. Reid submits that any money earned from these injections was given to him.
i. Ms. Reid has not had an easy time while in custody awaiting the disposition of these charges. She was the victim of an assault and has been given anti-depressants to deal with her depression.
j. Since being incarcerated, Ms. Reid has participated in counseling programs to develop life skills. Such programs are offered by the Elizabeth Fry Society. She also participated in 12 psychological counseling sessions.
k. Ms. Reid had an interest in art and had a studio in Toronto. There she displayed paintings, pottery and glass work pieces. She also worked for a few months in a hair salon.
l. Ms. Reid is a “permanent resident” in Canada. She is a British citizen and is likely to be deported as a result of her criminal conduct.
Conclusion
[27] Ms. Reid comes before the Court to be sentenced for serious crimes committed for a senseless reason: greed. Ms. Reid fraudulently represented both her credentials and her product to vulnerable victims who entrusted her with their care. She performed these services in unsterile environments causing bodily harm, serious in some cases. When advised of the complications experienced by some victims, Ms. Reid appeared dismissive, insensitive and uncaring.
[28] The gravity of the offences is demonstrated by the health ramifications that the victims have experienced and will likely continue to experience in the future. Although there are no prior cases that I can turn to for guidance on an appropriate range of sentence, it is difficult to imagine a more egregious example of breach of trust in a purported health care type setting.
[29] The victims were vulnerable. They turned to Ms. Reid for what they believed was a medical procedure being performed by a qualified medical practitioner, albeit they were aware that it was being performed in a “black market” type setting. When they asked about risks, they were lied to. When they asked about qualifications, they were lied to. They paid thousands of dollars, believing they were being injected with a particular product that would enhance their appearance. Instead, they were lied to and were injected with a material that seems to have only enhanced their risk of becoming seriously ill. I find that Ms. Reid preyed on these women and their vulnerabilities. She did so for her own financial well-being without regard to the health and safety of these women.
[30] Although the accused has served the equivalent of 33 months in custody, I cannot accede to the suggestion that no further period of incarceration is required. Doing so would not meet the principles of sentencing and, in particular, the need to denounce her conduct and deter her and others from committing similar offences. At the same time, the sentence I am imposing today should not be a crushing one that fails to give effect to the prospect of rehabilitation.
[31] I find that an appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances is one of eight years’ imprisonment. Such a sentence denounces Ms. Reid`s conduct and should deter others from setting up a business on the Internet providing services to those members of our public who can be detrimentally affected both physically and financially through fraudulent misrepresentations. This sentence also takes into consideration that Ms. Reid is a first time offender, that a first trip to the penitentiary should be as short as possible and the principle of totality.
[32] Ms. Reid will be given a credit of 33 months for time spent in pre-sentence custody. Accordingly, she will be required to spend a further 5 years, 3 months in jail. Ms. Reid will also be subject to the following ancillary orders:
a. To provide such samples of her bodily substances as may be required for forensic analysis pursuant to s. 487.051(b) of the Criminal Code; and
b. A weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code.
Kelly J.
Released: March 26, 2015
appendix “A”
CITATION: R. v. Reid, 2015 ONSC 1919
COURT FILE NO.: CR/14/40000/4010000
DATE: 20150326
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
MARILYN REID
reasons for sentence
Kelly J.
Released: March 26, 2015
[^1]: PMMA stands for polymethylmethacrylate. [^2]: 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575 [^3]: R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 [^4]: The facts regarding this complainant were considered in sentencing, but no conviction was made.