1. Overview:

1On January 19, 2016, I entered convictions of second degree murder, attempted murder and aggravated assault following the defendant’s pleas of guilt; and after hearing read the detailed and extensive agreed statement of facts concerning the aggravated assault of Emma Guthrie, the murder of Danny Pietersma, and the attempted murder of his wife, Sharlene Pietersma on June 28, 2013. Life imprisonment is required as a result of the second degree murder conviction. The issue for me to determine is the period before which the defendant may not seek parole. Whether or not parole is granted, the defendant will always be subject to this life sentence. Also to be determined is the penalty for the other convictions.

2. The Facts:

2The admitted facts are shocking in their violence, the consequences of the violence, and the life-long effects the surviving victims and their families will suffer as a result of the events of June 28, 2013.

(a) Circumstances of the offence

3In the early hours of June 28, 2013, while high on speed, the defendant stole $1,000 from his disabled Uncle’s account through an ATM, then purchased and consumed a quantity of cocaine, speed, and marijuana. He packed up a 9mm handgun, clips and ammunition, an 8 inch hunting knife, and a 12 inch metal pipe into a backpack along with condoms, sexual lubricant, some rope, and several pairs of surgical gloves. Around 3.45 am, the defendant called a taxi to take him to an address in Petawawa Point, the location of the 16 year old victim that he had intended to rape. En route, the defendant stopped at a convenience store for cigarettes, drinks and lottery tickets. He arrived in the intended neighbourhood around 4.30 am and hid in a nearby forested area where he consumed cocaine, speed and marijuana over the next four to five hours. At about 10.15 am the intended victim and her boyfriend left the address. Shortly thereafter, Emma Guthrie, a 17 year old neighbour of the intended victim was confronted by the defendant in her kitchen. The offender had the gun and pipe. Without warning, he struck Emma Guthrie on the head. She screamed for help, fell and lost consciousness. She came to and ran outside with the defendant chasing her. He knocked her down again with the pipe, and again she lost consciousness. The defendant later admitted to the police that “I was fucking whacked and I just went downhill, stupid, stupid”. When Emma regained consciousness, she went back inside and called 9-1-1. She was very badly injured.

4The defendant went back into the woods, left the pipe, and picked up the hunting knife. Taking the knife and the gun while wearing surgical gloves, the defendant went to the Pietersma home. Home at the time were Danny Pietersma, his wife Sharlene, their adult daughter, K; and her two children who were 6, and 9. K was asleep. The defendant entered their living room without warning where the children were playing, and was confronted by Sharlene. The defendant immediately set upon stabbing her repeatedly. Her screams for help caused Danny to come running into the living room. The defendant pushed Sharlene aside and began repeatedly stabbing Danny with the knife. In the process his loaded gun fell onto the floor. Sharlene tried to escape to the bedroom and was again attacked by the defendant with the knife. The defendant returned to the kitchen, saw Danny trying to call 9-1-1, and began stabbing him again. K awoke, came into the kitchen and ran out with the defendant chasing her. Both children witnessed the attack. When the paramedics arrived, realizing they could only take one of the victims to the hospital, took Sharlene; as in their judgement, while she was close to death and gurgling blood, she had a better chance than Danny who was lacking a pulse and not breathing. Danny succumbed to his injuries which included exsanguination from several stab wounds. These included penetrating wounds to his neck causing internal bleeding, and lacerations to his head causing external bleeding. Sharlene survived but has been left with serious and permanent injuries including a loss of vision.

5At approximately 11 am, the defendant fled to another house where he knocked on the door. The occupant, seeing all the blood on him, locked the door, and called 9-1-1. The defendant disposed of the knife (which was later recovered) and ran into a wooded area where he attempted to hide in the mud. He was discovered by the police with the aid of a tracking dog, and gave himself up. When arrested, he said “just kill me, just kill me, do it, let me die”. A urine analysis disclosed that the offender had cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana in his system.

(b) Circumstances of the offender

6The offender has never disputed his participation in these crimes. He pleaded guilty and formally accepted responsibility before his trial began. The offender’s hand written note he had with him at the time of the June 28, 2013 incidents, and admitted as part of the facts, admits and accepts responsibility. A statement to the police the day after his arrest admitted to many of the events of June 28, 2013. The offender also instructed his counsel not to challenge the Crown’s position concerning the period of ineligibility for the second degree murder conviction. He gave those instructions to his counsel after reviewing the victim impact statements.

7During the sentencing hearing the offender expressed his remorse to the victims present in court, said he was deeply sorry, and expressed the hope that his life sentence would help them deal with the terrible loss to everyone.

8The offender is 28 years of age (25 at the time of the offence), and grew up with a lot of instability. He was separated from his brother at age 3 and lived alone with his mother. His mother remarried, and he was moved all over the province. By age 16 he had left school after completing some Grade 9 and a couple of Grade 10 credits; and had become involved in drugs. The offender worked in the west on the pipeline for a time. Then in his early twenties he returned to Pembroke and a further descent into drug addictions. He found himself pushed into drugs, for solace, even more after his father blamed him for saving his life after a car crash in which his father lost an arm and became paralyzed.

9The offender has no criminal record and no prior involvement with the law. He filed a sentencing brief which included a letter from the detention centre attesting to the fact that he had been a model prisoner while in detention, letters from his family demonstrating their support and speaking to his good character which has unfortunately been concealed by drug addictions, and school records.

(c) Impact on the Victim and/or Community

10While the community was shocked at these events, the victims and their families have been left with permanent scars both physical and mental. Home invasions are frightening to members of a community because they threaten the very place where people look for safety and comfort. These home invasions were accompanied by such extreme violence as to take fear of home invasions to a new height.

11Six victim impact statements were filed, five were read into the record. They were emotional and moving accounts of the events of June 28, 2013; and graphic descriptions of how these families were ripped apart. The loss from death and the severe injuries are a permanent part of their lives. All continue on a daily basis to relive those tragic events. The grandchildren are growing up without a grandfather, and without a grandmother that can see and enjoy them. The grandmother has lost her lifetime companion at a time when his support would have been so incredibly necessary in her time of need. Emma has permanent physical and emotional scarring.

3. Legal Parameters:

12A conviction for second degree murder (s. 235 (1) CCC) requires life imprisonment subject to an order for a period of parole ineligibility of between 10 and 25 years. The factors to be considered are the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.(s. 745.4 CCC)

13A conviction for attempted murder (s. 239(1) CCC) provides for a sentence of between 4 years and life imprisonment.

14A conviction for aggravated assault (s. 268 (a) CCC) provides a maximum sentence of 14 years.

4. Positions of Crown and Defence:

15The Crown and the defence have adopted a joint position on sentence: 18 years parole ineligibility on the second degree murder, 14 years for the attempted murder conviction and 6 years for the aggravated assault. The Crown also seeks ancillary orders, DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders with the victims and their families. The defence does not oppose these ancillary orders.

5. Case Law:

16The Crown referenced the following authorities: R v Danvers, 2005 CarswellOnt 3808 (CA), R v White, 2008 CarswellBC 348 (SC) ,R v Latoski, 2005 CanLII 30697 (ON CA), [2005] OJ No 3565 (CA) ,R v Matwiy, 1996 ABCA 63, 1996 CarswellAlta 148 (CA) , R v JS, 2006 CarswellOnt 3999 (CA) ,R v Wright, 2006 CanLII 40975 (ON CA), 2006 CarswellOnt 7721 (CA) , R v Trotman, 2001 CarswellBC 712 (CA) , R v Norman, 2005 CarswellOnt 1491 (SC) , R v Shropshire, 1995 CanLII 47 (SCC), 1995 CarswellBC 906 (SCC) , R v Sirois, [2011] OJ No 2072 (CA) , R v Decker, [2014] OJ No 814 (SCJ) ,R v Brunet, 2010 ONCA 781, [2010] OJ No 4932 (CA) ,R v Cerra, 2004 BCCA 594, 2004 BCJ No 2453 (CA) ,R v Czibulka, 2011 ONCA 82 (CA) ,R v Van Osselear, 2004 BCCA 3, [2004] BCJ No 3 (CA) ,R v Ljeskovica, 2008 CarswellOnt 7275 (SCJ ,R v Carelse, 2013 SKQB 15 (QB) ,R v Horvath, [1982] OJ No 183 (CA) ,R v Lysak, [2005] AJ No 975 (CA) , R v CAM, 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), 1996 CarswellBC 1000 (SCC); but with special attention in submissions to R v Decker, R v Brunet, R v Van Osselear, R v Sirois, and R v Mafi.

17The defence referenced the following: R. v. Shropshire, 1995 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 227, R v Lane, 2008 ONCA 841 , R. V. Decker, [2014] O.J.No 814. 814814 (SCJ), R v Mafi, 2000 BCCA 135 ,R. v. Shapwaykeesic, [1997] OJ. No. 972 (Gen Div) ,R. v. Holland, [1981] O.J. No. 68 (ONCA) , R. v. M.T.P, 2004 BCCA 264 , R. v. Manley, [1995] O.J. No. 3594 (Gen Div) , R. v. Chen, [2006] O.J. No. 2330 (SCJ) , R v. Gebere, [2013] O.J. No. 3744 (SCJ) ,R. v. McKnight, 1999 CanLII 3717 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 1321 (ONCA) ,R. v. Kenyon, 2014 ONSC 4454 ( SCJ) ,R. V. Hall, [2011] O.J. No. 5859 (SCJ) , R. v. Arashvand, 2012 ONSC 5852 (SCJ) ,R. V. Keene, [2015] O.J. No. 4347 (SCJ), R. v. Macki, 2001 BCSC 427 , R. v. Sarao, [1995] O.J. No. 1027 (ONCA) ,R v. Currie, [2003] O.J. No. 1389 (SCJ) ,R. v. Doyle, 2003 CarswellNfld 38, (N & L SC – TD), R v K.G, 2010 ONCA 177 , R. v. Jang 2003 BCPC 73, [2003] B.C.J. No. 612 (BC Prov. Ct), R. v. Johnson 1998 CanLII 4838 (BC CA), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 274 , R. v. T.R. 1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA), 10 O.R.(3d) 514 , R v Dunstan, [1999] O.J. No. 4722; but with special attention in submissions to R v Lane, R v Decker, R v Holland, R v Mafi,

6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:

18Mitigating factors are to be determined on a balance of probabilities standard, while aggravating factors are to be determined on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The facts contained in the agreed statement of fact falls within the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

19Admissions of responsibility and guilty pleas are mitigating factors. I consider the offenders admission of the agreed statement of fact which describes the offences in graphic detail, and is at the heart of the submissions concerning the circumstances surrounding the offences to be a mitigating factor. The instructions by the offender to his counsel to accept the Crown’s position for parole ineligibility is a mitigating factor. His statement of remorse and apology in open court is a mitigating factor. The absence of a criminal record is a neutral factor.

20The agreed facts disclose a number of aggravating factors surrounding the offences, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender: The offenders note explaining his plan, in and of itself, discloses planning and premeditation. It describes his intention to commit a criminal attack on a young girl. While that plan was interrupted, it ultimately brought him to the victims’ home, and signalled the beginning of a series of vicious criminal attacks which are before the court. He prepared for these attacks in meticulous detail having brought with him a loaded gun and an extra clip with ammunition, a hunting knife, a piece of metal pipe, rope, condoms, and sexual lubricant. He used the knife in his attacks on the Pietersmas. He had the loaded gun with him. That in itself is an aggravating factor. It is notable that the offender had several opportunities to reconsider and go home, but he persisted. On the way there, he had stopped at a convenience store to get some drinks and snacks. When he arrived at his destination, he hid in the woods giving him several hours to consider what he was doing. Then when his intended victim left her home, he had a further chance to abandon his plan. He continued to Emma’s home, where he again could have but did not abandon his rampage; then on to the Pietersma home. Even then when he entered the home and saw the children there, he could have, but didn’t, abandon his plan. The presence of the children was an aggravating factor. The home invasion is an aggravating factor.

7. Principles of Sentencing:

21In determining the period of parole ineligibility for the second degree murder conviction, the following factors must be considered: the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

22The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the C.C.C. Its objectives are denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, making reparations, promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, and acknowledgement of the harm done to the victims and to the community.

8. Reasons:

23The joint submission by counsel is important. It is not open to a trial judge to fail to adopt a joint submission without very good reason. In this case the offender has instructed his counsel to agree to the joint submission. I am well satisfied that the joint submission is in the interests of justice and the public interest. The authorities make it clear that the range of ineligibility in a horrific case such as this approaches 20 years. The law requires that in considering the period of parole ineligibility I must consider the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offence, and the character of the offender. The seriousness and the circumstances of the offence could not be more horrific; and would suggest the upper end of the range. The taking of another’s life and the attempt to take someone’s life is of paramount concern in our law, and in our society. Nothing can be more important than the sanctity of life. However, the offender’s character is an important consideration for me in accepting a period of 18 years as the period of parole ineligibility.

24As the Crown conceded in submissions, this case is unique and significant in that the offender in this, the worst kind of case, has done everything he could have done by way of remorse after doing what he did.

25The offender is sentenced to life imprisonment subject to an order permitting him to apply for parole after 18 years. I want to make it clear that my decision on the period of parole ineligibility does not mean that he will be free on probation after that time. It means only that he will be permitted to make an application for parole after that period. It will be for the parole board on notice to the victims to determine if, when, and under what conditions he will be granted parole.

26I accept the joint submission of 14 years for the attempted murder on Sharlene Pietersma, and 6 years for the aggravated assault on Emma Guthrie.

9. Ancillary Orders:

27Following are the ancillary orders: DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order with the victims and their families

10. Final Decision

28The offender is sentenced to life imprisonment on Count #1, and may apply for parole after 18 years.

29On Count #2, he is sentenced to 14 years concurrent to count #1.

30On Count #3, he is sentenced to 6 years concurrent to Count #1.

Honourable Justice Timothy Ray

Released: January 28, 2016

CITATION: R. v. Goddard, 2016 ONSC 730

PEMBROKE COURT FILE NO.: 13-1509

DATE: 2016-01-28

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

and -

BRYAN GODDARD

Defendant

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Ray, J

Released: January 28, 2016

R. v. Goddard, 2016 ONSC 730

Case Summary

1. Overview:

2. The Facts:

(a) Circumstances of the offence

(b) Circumstances of the offender

(c) Impact on the Victim and/or Community

3. Legal Parameters:

4. Positions of Crown and Defence:

5. Case Law:

6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:

7. Principles of Sentencing:

8. Reasons:

9. Ancillary Orders:

10. Final Decision

CITATION: R. v. Goddard, 2016 ONSC 730

R. v. Goddard, 2016 ONSC 730

Case Summary

1. Overview:

2. The Facts:

(a) Circumstances of the offence

(b) Circumstances of the offender

(c) Impact on the Victim and/or Community

3. Legal Parameters:

4. Positions of Crown and Defence:

5. Case Law:

6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors:

7. Principles of Sentencing:

8. Reasons:

9. Ancillary Orders:

10. Final Decision

CITATION: R. v. Goddard, 2016 ONSC 730

Cited By (2 cases)

R. v. Daley, 2021 ONSC 7678

R. v Chisholm, 2016 ONSC 2577

Cited By (2 cases)

R. v. Daley, 2021 ONSC 7678

R. v Chisholm, 2016 ONSC 2577