ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-169
DATE: 20151218
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty the Queen
Mr. N. Chiera, for the Crown
- and -
Jason Dendekker
Mr. J. Fera, for Jason Dendekker
HEARD: December 18, 2015
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Conlan J.
I. Introduction and the Facts
[1] On September 28, 2015, Jason Dendekker entered guilty pleas to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the Indictment. Those charges are summarized as follows.
[2] Count 1 – on or about July 12, 2011, at Milton, Ontario, Mr. Dendekker assaulted Anita Tucker, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[3] The offender grabbed Ms. Tucker’s arm and swung her around.
[4] Count 2 – on or about the same date, at the same place, Mr. Dendekker committed mischief to property under $5000.00 by damaging Ms. Tucker’s laptop computer, contrary to subsection 430(4) of the Criminal Code.
[5] Mr. Dendekker, in a fit of rage, destroyed Ms. Tucker’s computer.
[6] Count 3 – between August 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, at Milton, Ontario, Mr. Dendekker assaulted Ms. Tucker, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[7] The offender pushed Ms. Tucker.
[8] Count 4 – on or about October 11, 2011 at Milton, Ontario, Mr. Dendekker assaulted Ms. Tucker, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[9] The offender pushed Ms. Tucker.
[10] Mr. Dendekker and Ms. Tucker were in a domestic relationship at the time of these offences. That relationship ended in the summer of 2012.
[11] A presentence report was ordered. The sentencing hearing was held in Milton on December 18, 2015.
II. The Offender
[12] The presentence report can only be described as a very positive one for the offender.
[13] Mr. Dendekker is now 36 years old. He has no prior criminal record.
[14] He is currently unemployed, although he raises German Shepherd dogs on the family farm.
[15] Mr. Dendekker has three children: an infant son with his current partner (not Ms. Tucker) who was born in March 2014, and two older twin boys from a prior relationship.
[16] There are no known substance abuse problems, currently, for the offender.
[17] Mr. Dendekker presented to the author of the presentence report as polite, cooperative, insightful, mature, and with genuine regret and remorse for his criminal behaviour towards Ms. Tucker.
[18] He has completed, voluntarily, a partner abuse counselling program in Guelph, Ontario. Further, again voluntarily, he paid $3000.00 in restitution for the damaged property.
[19] In the opinion of the author of the presentence report, the offender is a suitable candidate for community supervision.
III. The Positions of the Parties
[20] The Crown requests the following sentence: 30-45 days in custody, intermittent, to be followed by probation for two years, a secondary DNA Order and a section 110 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition Order.
[21] The Defence requests the following sentence: a conditional discharge or probation for twelve months. The Defence opposes the secondary DNA Order. The Defence takes no position on the section 110 Order.
IV. Analysis
The Basic Legal Principles on Sentencing
[22] Sentencing is a highly discretionary and individualized process.
[23] I must have regard to the principles of sentencing outlined in section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada – denunciation, specific and general deterrence, the need to separate certain offenders from society, rehabilitation, restorative justice and the promotion of responsibility in offenders.
[24] Because of the nature of these offences and the personal circumstances of this offender, the predominant sentencing principles at play here are denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation.
[25] Any sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender – section 718.1.
[26] Domestic abuse is a serious problem in our society. Our neighbours must realize that they cannot try to control and intimidate their partners. At the same time, however, although these crimes have had a devastating effect on Ms. Tucker (evidenced by her eloquent Victim Impact Statement marked Exhibit 2 on the sentencing), it must be noted that the specific assaultive behaviour here is far from the most serious that we see in the Courts.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[27] The chief aggravating factor is that Mr. Dendekker displayed, repeatedly, a callous disregard for the personal well-being of the person, Ms. Tucker, that he was in a relationship with. This was not an isolated incident.
[28] The mitigating factors include the guilty pleas, the lack of any prior criminal record of any sort, the very positive presentence report, and Mr. Dendekker’s efforts to address the underlying issues and make amends, through counselling and restitution.
What is a fit Sentence for Mr. Dendekker?
[29] In all of the circumstances, I have determined that a fit sentence for this offender for these crimes is a suspended sentence and probation for eighteen months. That probationary disposition applies to all four findings of guilt. All of the compulsory conditions apply. Further, Mr. Dendekker shall report to a probation officer within two working days of today and thereafter on such schedule and in the manner directed by the probation officer; he shall have no contact, directly or indirectly, with Ms. Tucker; and he shall not attend at any residence, place of employment or place of education known to him to be that of the victim.
[30] The normal victim fine surcharges are imposed on the four charges, with thirty days for payment.
[31] I decline to grant a conditional discharge as I am of the view that the repeated nature of the domestic assaultive behaviour would make such a discharge contrary to the public interest.
[32] A secondary DNA Order is made on each of the assaults. There is no evidence that it would unduly interfere with the offender’s privacy interests.
[33] A section 110 Order is made for a duration of five years, on each of the assaults.
[34] In arriving at this sentencing decision, I have tried to balance the serious nature of domestic assault offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence with the strong mitigating factors at play here and the principle of rehabilitation.
V. Conclusion
[35] In addition to the ancillary Orders mentioned above, the sentence of the Court is eighteen months’ probation.
Conlan J.
Released: December 18, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CR-14-169
DATE: 20151218
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty the Queen
- and -
Jason Dendekker
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Conlan J.
Released: December 18, 2015