Superior Court of Justice
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
MICHAEL LARSON
Reasons for Sentence
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE K. GORMAN
on January 23, 2017, at ST. THOMAS, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
C. Sigurdson Counsel for the Crown
K. Mersereau Counsel for Michael Larson
Monday, January 23, 2017
Reasons for Sentence
The fundamental principles of sentencing are to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
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 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.
As Chief Justice Lamer stated in R. v. M.(C.A.):
Sentencing is an individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction. As well, sentences for a particular offence should be expected to vary to some degree across various communities and regions in this country, as the "just and appropriate" mix of accepted sentencing goals will depend on the needs and current conditions of and in the particular community where the crime occurred.
Like every crime, there are both mitigating and aggravating factors.
The aggravating factors in this instance were, firstly, the significant impact that the crime had on the Ontario Provincial Police and, accordingly, the citizens of Elgin County. The crime undermined the authority of the Ontario Provincial Police. The vessel that was destroyed was the only vessel in the Elgin OPP's fleet and had there been any immediate calls for assistance on Lake Erie that might have resulted in extreme tragedy.
The mitigating factors, however, are numerous in my view. Mr. Larson was a youthful-first offender. He had no prior criminal antecedents. He entered a guilty plea and provided fulsome statements to the police. He was on bail following this offence for approximately two-and-a-half years without incident. He has an excellent Pre-sentence Report and clearly has demonstrated his remorse and acceptance of his involvement as a party to the offence. And to that end, and somewhat I must say surprising to the court because we very rarely hear this, in the interim since his arrest he has been saving and working towards restitution that he anticipated would be ordered. Ms. Mersereau advised the court that he has saved some $15,000.00, which remains in a trust account, which is quite remarkable given the fact that you have yet to gain your grade 12 degree and I hope you pursue that.
I have been provided with a number of precedents which have been very helpful, including the case of the former co-accused, Mr. Jacques. The difference between Mr. Jacques' sentence and the sentence that I am asked to impose are several. Mr. Jacques had an unenviable criminal record, he clearly was the principle involved in the incident. I am advised that he subsequently had a number of breaches on his release order.
But again, I reiterate, the extenuating circumstance in my mind, apart from everything I have indicated, the excellent Pre-sentence Report, the lack of criminal record, the remorse, is the fact that you did not wait until the imposition of this sentence to start thinking about restitution. That to me takes you out of the realm of Mr. Jacques and must go to your credit because it is not hollow. Words can be just hollow, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it." But when you put your money where your mouth is, that rings true to me.
Accordingly, I am going to give you credit for, on count 1, 7 days at one to one-and-a-half days of credit for 10 days in custody.
On count 2, 7 days at one to one-point-five for 10 days credit concurrent, so run at the same time.
I am going to put you on probation for three years. There will be no further custody for you.
You are going to submit to a DNA order, it is a secondary offence order and as you have indicated, you are not going to be here again. Maybe for jury duty, but I am not going to see you in this capacity again.
There will be terms. I am going to ask you, within 7 days, to pay the funds that are in Ms. Mersereau's trust account to Her Majesty the Queen, 777 Memorial Avenue, Orillia, Ontario, L3V7V3.
There is going to be a further restitution order encompassed in the probation order. So within the three years you will have paid the balance of that restitution order. I do not want to make an amount for each month because you may be able to do more one month or less one month. But within those three years that will be paid. The total amount is $52,640.81, less the $15,000.00.
You are not to associate with Gerald Jacques. I hope you think that is a good idea.
You are not to attend within 250 metres of any known place of his residence, employment or schooling.
You are to report within 48 hours to a probation officer and thereafter as they may direct you to.
You are going to reside at an address that they approve of.
You are going to take whatever counselling they may see appropriate.
You are not to possess any weapons, ammunition, firearms, crossbows. Do you have a FAC?
MR. LARSON: No.
THE COURT: Okay. You are not to apply for one. And you are not to possess any incendiary devices, including but not limited to matches or lighters or anything to that effect. Will that be difficult?
MS. MERSEREAU: Your Honour, I can tell you that he's been on that condition of release. My client is a smoker, so he's had to actually literally have other persons light the cigarette for him.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. MERSEREAU: And given that he's been able to do that successfully for two-and-a-half years, while I think it is a bit of a hardship, I'm confident that he could continue to follow that condition for the next three years.
THE COURT: Good.
MS. MERSEREAU: Thank you.
THE COURT: Maybe he will quit.
MS. MERSEREAU: You never know.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Victim fine surcharge?
THE COURT: Victim fine surcharge is mandatory. It is $200.00 on each count for a total of $400.00 and I will give you one year to pay that. He can pay it earlier, but you have one year.
CLERK REGISTRAR: And count 3 to be withdrawn?
THE COURT: Count 3 withdrawn?
MR. SIGURDSON: Yes please, Your Honour. Thank you.