ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Christopher Marvin Raymer, 2015 ONSC 668
COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-0010-BR
DATE: January 29, 2015
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty the Queen
Piera Pasloski, for the Respondent
Respondent
- and -
Christopher Marvin Raymer
Christopher Watkins, for the Applicant
Applicant
HEARD: January 27, 2015,
at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Regional Senior Justice D.C. Shaw
Decision on Application
[1] This is an application by the accused, Christopher Raymer, pursuant to s. 520 of the Criminal Code, for a review of the detention order made by Justice of the Peace, J. Guthrie, on October 21, 2014.
[2] The detention order was made on the secondary ground set out in s. 515(1) of the Criminal Code, namely that there was a substantial likelihood that Mr. Raymer would, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence.
Background
[3] Mr. Raymer is charged with two counts of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing therein the indictable offence of robbery, contrary to s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. He is also charged that, with intent to commit an indictable offence, he had his face masked, contrary to s. 351(2) of the Criminal Code. He is also charged that he carried a concealed weapon, contrary to s. 90 of the Criminal Code.
[4] The charges arise out of events on October 15, 2014 when the accused is alleged to have broken into the residence of Kevin Dodd, who was present at the time in the home with a friend, Adena Enger. The accused is said to have been masked with a bandana or ripped shirt and was holding a six inch knife. He made demands for money and pills. He took a backpack of fishing tackle from the residence. Mr. Dodd and Ms. Enger managed to flee the house and secure themselves in a locked vehicle until the police arrived. The accused was arrested a short distance from the residence. The accused matched the description given by Mr. Dodd.
[5] On his arrest, the accused was observed to be sweating, shaking and nervous. He was found to have on his person $870 and an insurance card in the name of Mr. Dodd. Mr. Dodd advised police that $900 cash was missing from the residence.
[6] A pellet or BB handgun was found in the rear porch of the residence. Mr. Dodd said the gun did not belong to him.
[7] Mr. Raymer is 28 years of age. He has no criminal record. He has resided with his common law spouse, Katelyn Bannon, for six years. They have a daughter who is 3 ½ years of age.
[8] Prior to his arrest, Mr. Raymer worked at a gas station on the Fort William First Nation, owned by his parents, Harold and Traci Pelletier.
[9] Mr. Raymer has been abusing OxyContin and cocaine for three or four years. He testified at his bail review hearing that he used cocaine once or twice per month. He used OxyContin more frequently, in pill form, one to two 80 mg. pills a day. He had used OxyContin on the day of the offences. He said that he started using OxyContin when he learned that his father had cancer, as a way of coping with his father’s illness. He and his father are close. Harold Pelletier has stage four lung cancer.
[10] At the bail hearing, the plan of release proposed to the Justice of the Peace was that Mr. Raymer would reside at home with Ms. Bannon who would act as his surety. The Justice of the Peace was informed that Mr. Raymer had been referred to a treatment centre in Niagara Falls and that he would be attending the centre in “the next couple of months.”
Reasons of the Justice of the Peace
[11] In determining that Mr. Raymer should be detained in custody, the Justice of the Peace focused on the fact that although Mr. Raymer had an admitted substance abuse problem, no treatment had been scheduled, and for that reason the bail hearing was premature. He stated:
“And truly, the treatment centre needs to happen, if that is the case. This needs to be set up; needs to be scheduled. The fact that it is not yet to that stage makes the court believe that this time is too early to be able to be confident that I could or should release you today.”
Evidence at the Bail Review Hearing
[12] Mr. Raymer testified that while he has been in custody he and his family have actively sought out treatment for his drug addiction.
[13] Ms. Michele Solomon was contacted by the family to complete a drug and alcohol assessment. In a letter dated December 15, 2014, filed on the bail review hearing, Ms. Solomon stated that she is certified to complete the Provincial Standardized Drug and Alcohol Assessment Tools. She has worked in mental health and addictions for 14 years, 10 of them at the Dilico Adult Residential Treatment Centre. In December 2014, Mr. Raymer completed a Treatment Entry Questionnaire, based on self-assessment. Subsequently, Ms. Solomon attended at the District Jail and conducted an assessment of Mr. Raymer. This is a necessary step for Mr. Raymer to get into residential treatment, if he were to be released from custody.
[14] Mr. Raymer testified that, if he was released, he would undergo an intake process for treatment for drug and alcohol abuse and would then go into residential treatment for six to nine months in Sault Ste. Marie.
[15] Ms. Bannon and Ms. Pelletier testified on behalf of Mr. Raymer. They advised that Mr. Pelletier was not in attendance on the bail review hearing because of his illness but that he was supportive of his son’s application.
[16] Ms. Bannon testified that news of Mr. Pelletier’s illness coincided with Mr. Raymer’s use of drugs. She said that Mr. Raymer did not know how to handle the illness. She said that she talks to Mr. Raymer daily. He has told her that he has let his family down and that he realizes that he needs to be the man in his family. The family recently has experienced a series of tragic events, including the illness of Mr. Pelletier, the death of Ms. Bannon’s mother and the discovery that the one year old son of Mr. Raymer’s sister has meningitis, which has led to the amputation of the infant’s feet. Ms. Bannon testified that she has been frustrated, hurt and angered by Mr. Raymer’s drug use. She did not permit him to use drugs in their home and on occasion moved from their home onto the reserve when he was using drugs. Ms. Bannon testified that she owns a home on Fort William First Nation. She is prepared to pledge $25,000 as a bond and deposit $5,000 cash as a surety.
[17] Ms. Pelletier testified as to the close relationship between Mr. Raymer and Mr. Pelletier. She said that Mr. Pelletier, who is a former Chief of Fort William First Nation, has arranged for Mr. Raymer to enter residential treatment. She said that she and Mr. Pelletier will assist Mr. Raymer in this regard. She testified that Ms. Bannon is a strong woman who would not put up with Mr. Raymer breaching his conditions of release. She said that Mr. Pelletier had previously arranged for Mr. Raymer to go into treatment, but that this had been postponed when Ms. Bannon’s mother died.
[18] Ms. Pelletier said that she and her husband own a house and land and that she has a fully paid Lexus and a large boat. She said that she would pledge $25,000 and deposit $5,000 as a surety.
Submissions
[19] The defence submits that there has been a material change in circumstances since the bail hearing before the Justice of the Peace in that Mr. Raymer has taken steps to go into treatment. The defence points to the support of Mr. Raymer’s family to arrange for treatment.
[20] The defence submits that pending Mr. Raymer’s entry into residential treatment, he be confined under house arrest, with cash deposits or pledges from Ms. Bannon and Ms. Pelletier, as sureties, in amounts to be determined by the court.
[21] The Crown submits that there has been no material change in circumstances. The Crown describes Mr. Raymer’s plans for treatment as “pie in the sky” with no specifics. The Crown submits that Mr. Raymer should continue to be detained on the secondary ground.
Discussion
[22] The standard of review on an application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code was set out by Hill J. in R. v. Reid, [2000] O.J. No. 3606 (S.C.J.), at para. 7:
A detention review pursuant to s. 520 of the Code is not a de novo hearing. The application for review must establish an error in principle in the reasoning of the show cause justice and/or a material change in circumstances since the original proceedings.
[23] I do not find any error in principle by the Justice of the Peace. However, I do find that there has been a material change in circumstances since the bail hearing before him on October 21, 2014.
[24] Although I share some of the concerns expressed by the Crown regarding the absence of specifics for the residential treatment program that Mr. Raymer testified that he intends to enter in Sault Ste. Marie, I am persuaded that he has taken steps, through the recent drug and alcohol assessment by Ms. Solomon at the District Jail and through the efforts of his parents, to arrange for residential treatment. This goes directly to the reasons of the Justice of the Peace for denying Mr. Raymer bail.
[25] In my view, the concerns of the Crown as to the lack of details and lack of independent confirmation that a treatment plan is in place can be addressed by making the attendance of Mr. Raymer at the residential treatment program, that he says he will attend, a condition of his release, coupled with a provision for house arrest pending that attendance.
[26] The Justice of the Peace also expressed some reservations about whether Ms. Bannon, as a surety, would, because of her ties to Mr. Raymer, actually report him if he was to breach the terms of his release. However, the Justice of the Peace also expressly stated that his decision was not based on Ms. Bannon as the proposed surety.
[27] I was impressed with the sincerity of both Ms. Bannon and Ms. Pelletier when they testified that they would have no hesitation, as sureties, in ensuring that Mr. Raymer would follow the conditions of his bail. In the words of Ms. Pelletier, “He knows that I will come after him in a heartbeat.”
[28] Both Ms. Bannon and Ms. Pelletier are prepared to back up their words of support for Mr. Raymer and their commitment to supervise him by agreeing to deposit substantial cash bail and to pledge even more substantial amounts without deposit.
[29] Although on a bail review hearing, proposals for new sureties and new surety conditions do not generally constitute a material change in circumstances, (if the sureties were in fact available at the bail hearing) in this case the proposals tie in with the condition that Mr. Raymer attend residential treatment, which constitutes the material change in circumstances.
Conclusion
[30] For the reasons given, Mr. Raymer’s application for detention review is granted and he shall be released from custody on a recognizance on the following conditions. Mr. Raymer shall:
(1) within 30 days, enter into a residential drug and alcohol program, recognized in writing by Michele Solomon as appropriate for the treatment of his addictions, and shall remain within that program, complying with its requirements, until he has successfully completed the program.
(2) pending his entry into the residential treatment program, and following completion of the program, at all times remain within his home at 1266 Rosslyn Road, Thunder Bay, except to attend at any counselling or assessment appointments related to his admission into residential treatment, or for medical or dental appointments, or for travel to enter into the residential treatment program, or to visit with his father, Harold Pelletier, or his nephew Preston Lesperance, during which times he shall be in the company of one of his sureties, namely, Katelyn Bannon or Traci Pelletier.
(3) while under house arrest or in residential treatment, present himself immediately to the police on their request to verify that he is in compliance with the terms of this judicial interim release order.
(4) abstain absolutely from the possession or use of any drugs or substances prohibited by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, except as prescribed to him by a medical doctor and abstain absolutely from the possession or use of alcohol.
(5) possess no firearms, ammunition, crossbows, pellet guns, BB guns or imitation guns.
(6) have no contact directly or indirectly with Kevin Dodd or Adena Enger or be within 50 metres of either of them.
(7) keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(8) comply with the rules of his sureties.
[31] In addition, as a requirement of his release, Katelyn Bannon and Traci Pelletier shall agree to act as sureties for Mr. Raymer, and each of them shall deposit $5000 cash and pledge $25,000 without deposit.
Regional Senior Justice D.C. Shaw
Released: January 29, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Christopher Marvin Raymer, 2015 ONSC 668
COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-0010-BR
DATE: January 29, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
- and –
Christopher Marvin Raymer
Applicant
DECISION ON APPLICATION
Shaw, RSJ
Released: January 29, 2015
/ket