Court File and Parties
Citation: R v. Rigby, 2017 ONSC 7842
Court File No.: CR-17-00000056
Date: 2017 10 10
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
ALBERT RIGBY
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on October 10, 2017, at OWEN SOUND, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
P. Leger
Counsel for the Crown
G. Deakin
Counsel for Albert Rigby
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE Pg 1
LEGEND
[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
[indiscernible] Indicates a portion of audio that is not clear enough to be recognized or identified.
Transcript Ordered:
August 12, 2024
Transcript Completed:
August 15, 2024
Ordering Party Notified:
August , 2024
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2017
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
CONLAN, J. (Orally):
My reasons for sentence have been typed. I will read them into the record. You do not need to take any notes. These are my reasons for sentence in the matter of Her Majesty the Queen and Albert Rigby.
Part 1 Introduction
Albert Rigby, hereinafter referred to as Rigby, pleaded guilty to arson, disregard for human life contrary to section 433(a) of the Criminal Code. The guilty plea was entered yesterday, the morning of the scheduled judge-alone trial.
In November 2015, Rigby was living in Wiarton, Ontario with Amanda Leslie, hereinafter referred to as Leslie. They were in a common-law relationship. The house at 433 Dawson Street was owned by Rigby and his former partner.
During the evening of November 4th, the police attended at the house after being called by a third party about a possible domestic altercation. The house having just burned down, Rigby and Leslie misled the police as to what had occurred. Only after interviewing neighbours did the police discover the truth about what happened on November 4th.
There was an argument of sorts between Rigby and Leslie. During that incident, Rigby threatened to burn down the house. He then splashed gasoline around the interior of the home. Inadvertently, some of that gasoline ended up on Leslie. The house became engulfed in flames and was totally destroyed by fire, killing two pets and causing the insurer to pay out thus far $92,153.12.
Exactly how the gasoline ignited is disputed. Rigby takes the position that the furnace came on and sparked the flames. The Office of the Fire Marshal disputes that. In any event, Rigby intentionally poured gasoline around inside the house knowing that it was occupied by him and Leslie. What he did caused, whether intentionally or recklessly, the fire and the resulting destruction of the house and the pets inside.
Part 2 - The Offender
Rigby has two children whom he sees but does not have custody of, aged ten and eight years. His employment history is as a labourer and includes work at a local quarry. There are no substance abuse or mental health issues. It appears that Rigby simply caused the house to burn to the ground, endangering himself and Leslie and killing two pets in the process, out of his own criminal tendencies.
Rigby has some 11 criminal convictions on his record from 1996 to 2017. They include break and enter with intent, possession of stolen property, break and enter and commit theft, breach of bail, mischief to property, theft, and assault. Rigby has been in custody on this charge since mid-April 2016.
Counsel agree that he be credited with the equivalent of 24 months pre-sentence custody, about 18 months less 2 months for an unrelated sentence served earlier this year for a balance of 16 months, which on an enhanced 1 to 1.5 scale amounts to 24 months. Some of that time served has been spent in segregation for reasons that did not involve misconduct by the offender.
Part 3 - The Positions of the Parties
The Crown requests the following sentence: three years' imprisonment less pre-sentence custody for a net sentence of 12 months in jail from today, plus probation for 2 years, plus ancillary orders. The Crown focuses on the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.
The defence requests a custodial sentence of 27 to 30 months, less the pre-sentence custody, plus 18 months of probation. The defence does not oppose the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
Part 4 - Analysis, The Legal Parameters
The maximum penalty for this crime is life in prison. There is no minimum punishment.
The Basic Legal Principles On Sentencing
Sentencing is a highly discretionary and individualized process. 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.
The paramount sentencing principles most applicable here are denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation. On the issue of general deterrence, this Court is aware that there have been other arsons committed locally in the recent past. In fact, this Court will sentence another arson offender later this month. Any sentence imposed on Rigby must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, section 718.1.
This is a most dangerous offence. Rigby could have seriously harmed or killed himself and/or Leslie. Two innocent pets perished in the fire. The house was totally lost. The insurance payout to date has been significant. Neighbours were placed at risk, both personally and in terms of their properties.
Rigby should not be deprived of his liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate in the circumstances, subsection 718.2(d). I should consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, subsection 718.2(e). Here, no sentence is sufficient, but for a further custodial one, even accounting for the time served to date.
The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
The aggravating factors here include:
the endangerment of not just one, but two persons and the death of two animals,
the sheer degree of the loss in that the home was completely destroyed, victimizing the co-owner, and the insurance payout to date is approaching $100,000.
There is nothing to mitigate the sentence except for the guilty plea. As late as it was, it still shows some remorse; it still avoided the necessity of a trial.
What is a fit sentence for Rigby? The following ancillary orders are issued without opposition:
a secondary DNA order,
a section 109 order for life,
a stand alone restitution or compensation order in favour of Certas Direct Insurance Company in the amount of $92,153.12 with no fixed date for payment.
But for the guilty plea, I would have likely sentenced Rigby to a penitentiary term of imprisonment in addition to the 24 months already served. In light of the guilty plea, however, I will impose a further 12 months in jail from today as requested by the Crown. That is an effective sentence of three years' imprisonment. Anything less than that would not do justice to the seriousness of what occurred.
Similarly, I adopt the Crown's position as to the length of the probationary period. Society needs to keep tabs on this criminal recidivist for a lengthy period of time. The custodial sentence will therefore be followed by two years of probation.
All of the statutory terms apply, plus reporting, counselling, the signing of any releases of information demanded by the supervisor. No possession of incendiary items, including matches and lighters. And no contact with the four persons named by the Crown, or attendance at their known places of residence, employment, and education. The no contact provision also applies while Rigby is serving his custodial sentence. The mandatory victim fine surcharge is imposed, six months to pay upon release from custody.
Mr. Rigby, I am required to tell you that you must obey the probation order. Any failure to do so could result in a criminal charge of breach of probation. And if found guilty of breach of probation, you could be sentenced to a period in jail.
Do you have any questions, sir, about the terms and conditions of the probation order, or the DNA order, or the firearms and weapons prohibition order, or the victim fine surcharge, or any other part of the sentence?
ALBERT RIGBY: I do agree with all of you — that you have said.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions or is there any uncertainty about the orders that have been made?
ALBERT RIGBY: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Deakin, and thank you, Mr. Leger.
MR. LEGER: Thank you. The other charge is to be withdrawn, please?
THE COURT: I have endorsed that already, thank you.
MR. LEGER: Thank you.
ALBERT RIGBY: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you.
...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED