COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00000015-0000
DATE: 20210219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOSEPH ALLAN PICKSTOCK and
ROBERT WILLIAM PICKSTOCK
Defendants
Kerry Watson, for the Crown
Dawn Quelch, amicus curiae for Joseph Allan Pickstock
David Sinnett, for Robert William Pickstock
HEARD at Napanee: 19 February 2021
MEW J. (Orally)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
[1] Joseph Pickstock and Robert Pickstock, the indictment setting out the charges that were laid against you contained 27 counts, reflecting a trail of deceit, destruction, despicable conduct, disregard for the persons, property, and physical and mental wellbeing of others, both friends and strangers.
[2] The victim impact statements represent only a fraction of the injury that you have caused, the lives that you have devastated. Savings and cherished belongings and properties that can never be recovered or replaced. So extensive and pervasive are the crimes that you have committed and their impact on so many people, that no punishment which this court is empowered to impose on you can adequately express the condemnation which your actions deserve.
[3] Robert Pickstock, you have pleaded guilty to four counts of public mischief, all of which are associated with the criminal behaviour of your brother and co-accused. In respect of each of these counts, you falsely represented circumstances to divert the attention of the police away from your brother’s criminal activities. By doing so, you helped to facilitate, nourish, perpetuate, and support his despicable crimes. When charged as an indictable offence, a charge of public mischief on each count is subject to punishment which can include a term of imprisonment of up to five years on each count.
[4] Joseph Pickstock, you have defrauded John Locke of $42,121.40, an amount representing some if not all of the retirement savings accumulated by Mr. Locke and his wife.
[5] You have defrauded Lorne Goring of $57,370, at one point pretending to be the fictitious father of a dying son as part of the subterfuge that you perpetrated.
[6] You broke into the memorabilia store owned by Kevin Caird and then set fire to it, causing losses of approximately $200,000 to $300,000, only a fraction of which was recovered from insurance, and in doing so, destroying a business that had taken 25 years to build. The fire, of course, also caused irreparable financial devastation to Joe Murano, the owner of the property, as well as damaging the business premises of William Blondin, David Golden, and Katherine Pyke.
[7] You were found to be in possession of numerous items of stolen property, including sports memorabilia, other collectibles, boats and video surveillance equipment.
[8] You defrauded Paul Fendley of approximately $35,000. You caused approximately $25,000 of damage when you committed the offence of arson by deliberately setting fire to the Waupoos Marina in order to conceal the fraud that you had perpetrated on Mr. Fendley.
[9] That fire also destroyed the sailboat owned by Allan Stevens. That boat had been preserved and shipped from California and was being assembled and reconstructed by the Waupoos shipyard. It represented the entire retirement investment of Mr. Stevens. The boat was not salvageable, and because it was not being used, it was not insured, and he lost $70,000. He has not been able to retire as a result.
[10] Charles Zhang, the owner of the marina, estimates that in addition to the loss of property that you caused, the customer numbers at his marina have dropped by about 20 percent since the fire due to customer safety concerns.
[11] You also pleaded guilty to public mischief charges and, perhaps worst of all, you defrauded 94-year-old Luis Monton, the now deceased owner of the properties that you rented, of a total of $73,806.93.
[12] You set fire to a house owned by David Snider, whose family has owned the property since 1805, and which, while uninhabited at the time of the fire, contained Mr. Snider’s family’s possessions and treasured family heirlooms. The house itself was over 150 years old. It was the place where Mr. Snider and his three sisters had been born and raised over 70 years ago. The house and its contents and the cost of cleanup have a value of at least $125,000, and according to Mr. Snider, those expenses continue. He lives next door, and every day he looks at the empty space where his family home once stood.
[13] You also set fire to the trailer owned by Kenneth Sutcliffe, someone you had known since high school, destroying the trailer and its contents, and damaging three other trailers that were nearby. The damage caused to Mr. Sutcliffe amounted to $30,000.
[14] You committed the offence of break and enter at J&B Books in Trenton. The alarm went off and the consequences of that offence were limited to some damage that was done as you tried to gain entry.
[15] You also used a credit card stolen from your friend, Guy Migneault, racking up purchases of over $2,000.
[16] Your false report of offences to Crime Stoppers to distract attention away from your own criminal activities and the waste of valuable law enforcement resources resulted in the obstruct justice charge that you also pleaded guilty to.
[17] Each of the arson charges carry a maximum penalty of 14 years; the fraud-over-$5,000 charges each carry a maximum penalty of 14 years; the break and enter charge carries a maximum penalty of ten years; the credit card charge, ten years; and the obstruct justice charge, two years.
[18] Robert Pickstock, you do not have a criminal record. A pre-sentence report prepared by the court suggested that you are well regarded by friends and family. Your wife and your in-laws have stood beside you notwithstanding the offences that you have committed. You have had to sell your family home in order to cover legal fees, and you lost a well-paid job with benefits as a result of the charges that were laid against you. You have two children, aged 11 and 9 respectively, and are described as an excellent father to them.
[19] It was suggested that you were largely oblivious to what your brother was doing, that you just went along for the ride and did not ask questions. The pre-sentence report suggests that even when you started to suspect that something was not right, you did not question it as you wanted to please your brother. You have said, however, that you were stupid for allowing yourself to be manipulated, and the pre-sentence report indicates that you have expressed regret for all the people who have been hurt by your actions. But, at least at the time of the preparation of the pre-sentence report, you maintained that you did not know about the arsons.
[20] Despite the concessions that you eventually made, during the course of the investigation, you steadfastly maintained that you were unaware of the arsons and presented yourself as being a simple and innocent man.
[21] The investigators, on the other hand, regarded it as inconceivable that you were, in fact, oblivious to your brother’s incendiary activities. I agree.
[22] As counsel for the Crown comprehensively laid out in her submissions this morning and by reference to the Agreed Statement of Facts, while you may not have known each and every detail of what your brother was doing, you knew he was up to no good, and you personally engaged in detailed deceptive behaviour in terms of your emails and false crime reports, your contrived identify and telephone number, in order to frustrate the police in their detection and prevention of your brother’s crimes.
[23] It is said that the investigation revealed a more cunning, deceitful, cold and calculating personality than the one you convey. Perhaps. It is certainly understandable why the investigators would have formed that view. What can be said with certainty is that yours were not the actions of a bumbling dupe, blindly doing your brother’s bidding solely out of some misplaced notion of family loyalty. It is clear from the comments that you made in person just before the lunch break that you are not an unintelligent or an inarticulate person.
[24] That having been said, you feel that you have learned a lesson and will not reoffend. You said you do not plan to be here again, and I accept that. I accept that your prospects for rehabilitation are good. You hope to remain available to assist your wife, who has health challenges, and your father-in-law. You reportedly have an offer of employment at a machine shop in Trenton commencing in March. During the over three years that you have been on bail, you have been completely compliant with the conditions of that bail.
[25] Joseph Pickstock, Ms. Quelch, on your behalf, has acknowledged the very real and profound injury that your actions have caused to your victims, as well as the harm and the fear that you have caused in the community, your community. You regret, too, having dragged your wife and your brother into your web of criminal behaviour.
[26] You say that you tried to figure out how you got to this point. That is a good question. Was it by some twisted notion that you were providing for your family? Or was it the result of a perverse and cynical exploitation of others? In that context, it seems there to me that there is a significant difference between fraudulently obtaining money from others because your own finances were spinning out of control, and the indiscriminate destruction of property by setting fire to it. You had nothing to gain by doing that. As you acknowledged, it was only by good fortune that no one was physically hurt, or worse, by the fires that were set by you.
[27] To your credit, you still have the support of your family, your wife and your two children, and you have skills that can, and in the future hopefully will, be put towards earning an honest living.
[28] I have only described by way of very brief overview a little earlier in my comments the nature of the offences that have been committed. A comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts was read into the record and filed with the court at the time that your guilty pleas were taken on the 3rd of July, 2020. I have likely not done justice in my summary in describing the ruination and distress that the actions of both of you have caused your victims.
[29] A number of them have assisted the court by providing victim impact statements. They speak not only to the devastation of, and in many cases life-altering, financial losses, but for those deceived, feelings of betrayal and violation of trust. “Why me?”, asks Mr. Snider, whose family home was burned down to the ground for seemingly no reason. Why indeed?
[30] Each of these crimes had real victims. No punishment that I can impose on you, either of you, will adequately redress the injury, the despair, or the losses that your victims have suffered.
[31] Robert Pickstock, in your case, the Crown is seeking a term of imprisonment of two years less a day with credit to be given for a total of 21 days of pre-trial custody. I am also asked to take into account the bail conditions that you were placed under, and to give credit for up to eight months for those conditions, which undoubtedly represented a restriction on your liberty.
[32] On your behalf, Mr. Sinnett submits that a conditional sentence of imprisonment in the community would be more appropriate, having regard to the bail conditions that you were under, and the appropriate allowance for the changed circumstances of incarceration resulting from the current public health pandemic, and he suggests that 12 months of a conditional sentence going forward would be appropriate.
[33] In addition, it is submitted by the Crown, and I believe largely concurred with by Mr. Sinnett, that following the completion of your custodial or conditional sentence, you should be on probation for a further three years. The Crown has also requested that a percentage of the restitution ordered in this case shall be paid by you, at a suggested level of $74,400.
[34] Joseph Pickstock, in your case, the Crown and Ms. Quelch, who acts as amicus curiae, jointly submit that a global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment is appropriate. This is broken down as follows:
a. On the charge of fraud over $5,000 with Mr. Locke as the victim, six months’ custody, consecutive to the other terms of imprisonment, and a freestanding restitution order of $42,121.40;
b. On the charge of fraud over $5,000 with Mr. Goring as the victim, six months’ custody, consecutive to the other terms of imprisonment, and a freestanding restitution order of $57,370;
c. On the charge of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document in which Mr. Monton is the victim, one year in custody, consecutive to the other terms of imprisonment, and a freestanding restitution order of $73,806.93;
d. On the arson and fraud occurrences, a five-year sentence concurrent across those counts, and consecutive to the other charges already mentioned.
[35] Other ancillary orders are also sought, as well as a freestanding restitution order in the amount of $453,849.29, in addition to the specific amounts that I have already referenced, and that is premised on the basis of a further $74,400 being contributed by Robert Pickstock.
[36] It is common ground, Joseph Pickstock, that you are entitled to credit of 21 days for pre-trial custody, and in addition, six months as a result of the stringent bail conditions you were under, in accordance with the principles set out in R. v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321, 2006 CanLII 3957 (ON CA).
[37] As with any other sentencing decision, I am required to have regard to the general principles of sentencing, which are set out in the Criminal Code, and in particular, in s. 718. Judges passing sentence are required by law to impose a just sanction that has one or more of the following six objectives:
(1) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(2) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(3) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(4) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(5) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(6) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[38] Other sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code, and provide that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. Furthermore, s. 718.2(3) provides that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered.
[39] In this case, there are, in my view, very few mitigating factors. The most significant one is that you both pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial that was set to last for 12 weeks, as well as avoiding the revictimization of those affected by your crimes.
[40] So far as aggravating factors are concerned, the victim impact statements largely speak for themselves, and they do so eloquently.
[41] Joseph Pickstock, although you did not physically injure or abuse your victims, I would nevertheless characterize your behaviour as depraved. As Johanne Monton, the daughter-in-law of your 94-year-old victim, Luis Monton, put it simply but powerfully:
Fraud is criminal. Fraud against an elderly person with diminished capacity is not only criminal, it is despicable. Mr. Pickstock should be punished for the pain and suffering he caused his victims, as well as the financial losses, to the full extent of the law.
[42] As for you, Robert Pickstock, your reported attempts to distance yourself from your brother’s crimes and portray yourself as duped are wholly unconvincing, and it was appropriate that in your comments to the court earlier today that you acknowledged that you should have known what was going on.
[43] Robert Pickstock, I have read and considered the letters of support that were filed on your behalf. You have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to work for a living. You are a source of considerable help to your in-laws and to your wife, and I have no doubt that you have already suffered significant financial consequences as a result of the mistakes that you have made.
[44] I have considered the cases which Mr. Sinnett referred me to. In R. v. Chadha, 2021 ONSC 495, a very recent decision of this court, it was decided that where the parties have presented to the court an appropriate joint submission and where the aggravating and mitigating factors were reasonably balanced, the risks associated with the pandemic could tip the scale in favour of a conditional sentence.
[45] This is not, in my view, such a finely balanced case. The aggravating factors as described by the Crown and the requirement for denunciation of your actions weigh heavily in favour of a custodial prison sentence.
[46] When, as with the charges against you, Joseph Pickstock, a joint submission on sentence is made by the Crown and on behalf of the accused, a sentencing judge is required to apply what is commonly referred to as the “public interest test” in deciding whether or not to accept the joint submission. Under this test, trial judges should not depart from a joint submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise not in the public interest.
[47] The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly. In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, Mr. Justice Moldaver on behalf of the Supreme Court explained at paragraph 34, that this is a very high threshold, and that:
Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down.
[48] In respect of this case, I want to commend the work done by the police and prosecution: Ms. Romeo, who was the lead prosecutor, Sergeant Antaya, and Detective Garrah, as well as the work that has been done by Ms. Watson and Ms. Quelch, and Mr. Sinnett for that matter, although obviously not involved with Joseph Pickstock’s joint submission, in coming to an agreement on the facts and a joint submission. I know from my involvement in the numerous trial management conferences in the leadup to what was expected to be a very lengthy and complex trial that the avoidance of a trial is a significant achievement. It may well be, as you suggested, Ms. Watson, that the prosecution case was a very strong one, but it was nevertheless a complex one, and as I understand it, occupied many, many boxes of materials. As you described in your submissions this morning, the work that was done by way of verification of the circumstances and the events was exacting and comprehensive.
[49] The state, the victims, and the justice system, particularly a justice system faced with the challenges of the current public health pandemic, have all been beneficiaries of the professionalism of the police and the prosecutors in this case. The defence lawyers, too, have, in my view, discharged their responsibilities as officers of the court in a highly appropriate and competent and professional manner.
[50] All of that having been said, I cannot honestly say that I did not pause to consider whether seven years and the other orders that have been suggested adequately reflect the gravity of the offences that, Joseph Pickstock, you committed, and in particular the need for society’s condemnation of them. However, governed by the guidance provided by the Supreme Court, my sentencing decision in respect of Joseph Pickstock will give effect to the joint submission that has been made.
[51] With respect to you, Robert Pickstock, I have given serious consideration to the conditional sentence of imprisonment within the community that was suggested, but I have concluded that you need to spend some time separated from society. If nothing else, this will hopefully give you a further opportunity to reflect on your degree of responsibility.
[52] I am therefore going to sentence you to a net term of 12 months imprisonment. That is 12 months in total, having taken into account credit for 21 days of pre-trial custody and an allowance of approximately eight months to account for the bail conditions you experienced. In addition, I will make an order for you to be placed on probation for three years, after the custodial part of your sentence has been served, on the terms that have been requested.
[53] In terms of restitution, it is with some reluctance that I agree with Mr. Sinnett that the Criminal Code limits my ability to order restitution to loss, damage, or destruction of property as a result of the commission of the offences that you have been charged with, Robert Pickstock. In relation to three of the four charges, your actions occurred after the property of others had been damaged by the criminal acts of your brother. The exception is the J&B Books charge, in relation to which the total damage was $1,000. I will therefore make a compensation order against you for 30 percent of that amount, as well as 50 percent of the municipal costs.
[54] This disposition is, of course, as provided by the Criminal Code, without prejudice to any civil liability that you may be found to have to any of the parties affected by your actions.
[55] Joseph Pickstock, can I ask that you stand at this time, please.
[56] Joseph Pickstock, I am sentencing you to seven years imprisonment. That seven years is a global sentence which will be broken down in the manner that I indicated previously. You will receive credit for 21 days of pre-trial custody based on a ratio of 1.5 days of credit for every day served. You will also receive credit for six months for the time that you were subject to restrictive bail terms.
[57] I make the ancillary orders requested by the Crown, namely that you provide a DNA sample; a lifetime weapons prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code; a non-communication order with respect to the victims: David Snider, Kenneth Sutcliffe, Kevin Caird, Joseph Murano, Paul Fendley, Robert MacMillan, Charles Zhang, Allan Stevens, Guy Migneault, Johanne Monton, Robert Collins, John Locke, Lorne Goring, William Blondin, David Golden, and Katherine Pyke.
[58] I am going to make a freestanding restitution order pursuant to s. 738. We will need to recalculate that in view of the disposition I have made for Robert Pickstock. You had asked for $536,217.87, Ms. Watson, but I think we will need to figure out exactly what that amount is, and I am sure we can do that before we all leave today.
[59] There will be an order of forfeiture under s. 491 of the Criminal Code for the Ruger .22 calibre rifle and any ammunition seized by the police. There will be orders under s. 490 and 491.1 for the forfeiture of all property seized by the police at 9108 and 9133 Highway 33 that cannot lawfully be claimed by you for restitution purposes, with the caveat that, and I believe this is going to be facilitated by the police, a copy of any data that is stored on the stolen computer that is one of the items of property, can be provided to you.
[60] So I think unless I have left anything out, Ms. Watson, that was it with respect to Joseph Pickstock.
MS. WATSON: Yes, thank you.
THE COURT: All right. So you can sit down, Mr. Pickstock. Can I ask, Robert Pickstock, for you to stand up, please.
[61] Robert Pickstock, I am sentencing you to serve 12 months in prison. That is a net amount. In other words, that is the term of imprisonment after taking into account the 21 days of pre-trial custody and allowances both for the bail conditions that you have been under for the past three years approximately, as well as the considerations that have been given by the court to the changed terms of incarceration resulting from the current public health crisis.
[62] In addition to that, and upon completion of the custodial portion of your sentence, you will be on probation for three years. In addition to the usual statutory terms, there will be conditions that you have no contact with Joseph Pickstock or any of the other individuals whose names I have already recited in connection with my sentencing decision for Joseph Pickstock. You will not possess any flammable devices or accelerant except while on your own property. You will not possess or use any scanner of any kind that can be used for the purpose of listening to police, fire, or emergency responder communications or any radio transmissions. You will not possess any tools unless on your own property or while at work that could be used for the purpose of lockpicking, testing phone lines, or breaking into buildings or alarm systems. You will advise your probation officer of any change of employment. You will take any counselling as recommended by your probation officer and sign all releases necessary to monitor compliance. Once any required counselling component of your probation has been completed, the terms of your probation will be changed to non-reporting. You will not contact police, fire, or emergency services unless for a bona fide emergency. You will not attend Pickerel Trailer Park located at 665 Southshore Road in Greater Napanee, nor will you attend J&B Books located at 48 Quinte Street in Trenton.
[63] You will, as I have already indicated, make restitution to the extent of 50 percent of the damage inflicted, or the compensation amount due to the local fire service, which 50 percent of that is $2,732, and then as indicated, you will also pay restitution of $300 to Robert Collins, the principal of J&B Books.
[64] I am also going to make a DNA order, that you provide a DNA sample for the secondary designated public mischief offence.
[65] There will be an order for the forfeiture of offence-related property, including lockpicking tools, phone line tester, police scanners, and the Chevrolet Cruze in police possession, although you are at liberty to retrieve – is that right, Mr. Sinnett?
MR. SINNETT: Yes, the trunk was full of items, Your Honour. Not to interrupt your sentence, the intent was to have the car forfeited and applied to the restitution.
THE COURT: What you are suggesting is that the car does not get forfeited to the Crown, at least to the extent that its disposition can satisfy the restitution order, if that that happens, then any balance remaining would be forfeited to the Crown.
MR. SINNETT: The balance can be forfeited, but there should be in excess of the amount of restitution.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we will have to figure out how to wordsmith that. Ms. Watson, do you agree, that was the intent?
MS. WATSON: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. And I think unless I have left anything out, that was it.
MS. WATSON: Yes, that’s right. Your Honour, my read of the recalculation, then, of the restitution owed by Joseph Pickstock, if the total amount was $536,217.87, it would be less $300.00 and less $2,732.00, so that should be a total amount for Joseph Pickstock of $533,185.87.
THE COURT: All right. So that is, Joseph Pickstock, the amount of restitution that you will be required to make is $533,185.87. Is there anything else that I should have dealt with that I have not?
MS. QUELCH: Just for clarity then, sir, so the amounts in the joint submission were not accepted on terms of restitution?
THE COURT: Well, the amounts in the joint submission were predicated upon Mr. Robert Pickstock paying 30 percent, but as I have looked at the law, I cannot do that.
MS. QUELCH: They were also, sir, predicated upon an apportionment without requirement of strict proof of the loss.
THE COURT: Well, they were apportioned on the basis of an assumption that they could be apportioned. But as I read the Code, I can only order restitution in respect of offences where the offence resulted in the loss of or damage to property. Three of the four mischief charges that were committed by Robert Pickstock were when he made phone calls after the commission of the crimes that had resulted in the damage to or destruction of property. So that is my problem. I don’t know, Ms. Watson, do you have a view on that? I have made my determination on what I am prepared to order against Robert Pickstock, but Ms. Quelch is suggesting that the 70 percent formed part of the joint submission.
MS. WATSON: No, it was not. There was a total amount of restitution that I advised with respect to each counsel, and that total amount was the $536,217.87, as I stated. Every single victim before this court provided an amount, probably not an amount that in any way takes into account what they have lost.
THE COURT: I think that is right.
MS. WATSON: That was the only thing that was provided to counsel. My suggestion was that 70 percent be with respect to Joe, 30 percent with respect to Robert. Your Honour disagreed with that, but the total remains the total. So I don’t think we can argue with Your Honour’s decision. It was not part of a joint submission. And....
THE COURT: Well, that is my concern. If it was part of the joint submission, then the implication of what Ms. Quelch is saying is that I have rejected a portion of the joint submission, in which case, I would have to give you the opportunity to persuade me that I should not have rejected it. It doesn’t sound to me, at least according to your version of events, Ms. Watson, that this formed part of the joint submission. But Ms. Quelch, you have got a different....
MS. WATSON: For it to be a joint submission, Mr. Sinnett would have to agree with the 30 percent of the total restitution. Again, if there is a total amount of restitution, it needs to be paid. Mr. Sinnett never agreed to that, so I didn’t take it to be a joint submission. And it was something that I actually proposed in this chart and provided to counsel this morning.
MS. QUELCH: If I may...
THE COURT: Yes, take your time.
MS. QUELCH: If I may just have a moment with my client, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. QUELCH: Your Honour, it may be a simple matter of semantics, and I am certainly not asking that we not conclude the proceeding today with your decision. Just for clarity of the record, for Mr. Pickstock’s benefit going forward, there were discussions about the overall amount of restitution. However, the Agreed Statement of Facts and sentencing position that was discussed and that was accepted by Mr. Pickstock apportioned 30 percent of the total restitution to a person other than Mr. Pickstock. He was not allowed to coordinate resolution negotiations with his brother. The joint position is between Mr. Pickstock and the Crown, not between the Pickstocks and the Crown. I take my friend’s point, Your Honour has ruled. I am not seeking a bench appeal at this point, that is – it’s not available to me. But the nature of the obligations that Mr. Pickstock agreed to as part of this resolution is not the same as what he is leaving with today. But I am simply amicus. In addition to that issue, sir, there is also – I don’t want Ms. Rhonda Pickstock to be forgotten.
THE COURT: Oh, yes, all right.
MS. QUELCH: And I have – as well, sir, you had asked, I believe, at a trial management conference to extend the amicus for my – to assist Ms. Rhonda Pickstock today. I would also ask you, similarly today, that you extend that order for me to assist Mr. Joseph Pickstock before Justice Griffin to deal with that one outstanding OCJ case, please.
THE COURT: All right, Ms. Quelch, I am happy to do that. I am not sure what you require from me in terms of orders or paperwork, but if you prepare it, I will sign it.
MS. QUELCH: Thank you, sir. Simply having the comment on the record, I think I’m confident I can relay that to Legal Aid.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. QUELCH: That it ought to cover my efforts. Thank you.
THE COURT: That would be fine. And in respect of the comments you have just made, I totally appreciate what you have said, and to some extent I threw a spanner into the works by coming to a slightly different conclusion on the restitution issue. But, at the end of the day, I appreciate that Joseph Pickstock may have viewed what had been proposed, but the bottom line number has not changed. The total amount of the harm caused, if this was a civil case, the liability would be joint and several in respect of any liability that existed. So whether it is viewed as just an unfortunate twist or as a variation on the joint submission, I think it is sustainable in the interest of justice, and I have considered carefully what you said.
MS. QUELCH: Thank you, sir. I leave that to another court on another day if needed, but not for me, sir.
THE COURT: All right. So we should then deal with the charge against Ms. Pickstock.
... WHEREUPON OTHER MATTERS ARE SPOKEN TO
THE COURT: All right, is there anything else that we need to deal with on the record.
MS. WATSON: I don’t think so, sir.
THE COURT: I will remain on the premises until the paperwork has been completed, however long that takes. For those who have been participating by telephone today, I apologize for the lamentable quality of the audio. I am afraid that one of the challenges of being in a historic courtroom that we share with the Lennox and Addington County is that we don’t have 21st century equipment. We are working on it, but it is not with us yet. So I apologize, and thank you for your patience. And both to you, and to the other people in the courtroom, I hope that this will now provide some closure to what has clearly been a very difficult and traumatic experience for many people, so thank you.
THE COURT REGISTRAR: Your Honour, with regards to the remaining counts on the indictment, are they to be withdrawn?
THE COURT: I think that was dealt with. Was that not dealt with at the time of the plea to the other counts?
MS. WATSON: I thought so as well, but if not, if the remaining counts with respect to Joseph and Robert, they can be marked as withdrawn in light of the pleas to the other counts.
THE COURT: Let me just check. Well, I am looking at the endorsement, it is not entirely clear, so let’s be on the safe side and record that all other counts on the various indictments are withdrawn at this time.
MS. WATSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
Graeme Mew J.
Handed down orally: 19 February 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00000015-0000
DATE: 20210219
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOSEPH ALLAN PICKSTOCK and
ROBERT WILLIAM PICKSTOCK
Defendants
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Mew J.
Handed down (orally): 19 February 2021