COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-396 DATE: 2023 09 26

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – ROGER JAGGERNAUTH

Counsel: Keeley Holmes and Ryan Mullins, for the Crown Jordan Gold and Jacob Roth, for Mr. Jaggernauth

HEARD: August 29, 2023

ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE

J.M. Woollcombe J.

Introduction

[1] On June 16, 2023, Roger Jaggernauth was found guilty of the attempt murder of Marlene Pimenta and of counselling William Paul Eakin to commit the offence of murder. He is before the court for the imposition of sentence.

[2] Counsel have jointly proposed a total sentence of 16 and one half years custody consisting of 16 and one half years for attempt murder and 6 months concurrent for counselling to commit an indictable offence. It is agreed that Mr. Jaggernauth has served 15 days of pre-sentencing custody for which he should be credited for 22 days, which should be deducted from the proposed 16 and one half year total sentence.

[3] In terms of ancillary orders, the Crown seeks a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years, a DNA order and a s. 743.21 non-communication order with Ms. Pimenta while Mr. Jaggernauth is in custody.

Circumstances of the Offences

[4] I am not going to review the circumstances of the offences in any detail. They are set out at length in the reasons for judgment, now reported at 2023 ONSC 3539.

[5] In short, I concluded that Mr. Jaggernauth orchestrated a hit man to go to Ms. Pimenta’s home on the evening of November 7, 2018 to try to kill her. That person used a cross bow at the front door of her home to shoot her with an arrow, while pretending that he was making a delivery. Ms. Pimenta suffered life threatening injuries. Fortunately, with a great deal of medical intervention, she survived.

[6] In respect of the counselling to commit murder charge, I found that Mr. Jaggernauth knew that his friend Mr. Eakin had a history with the Satan’s Choice Motorcycle Club. He contacted Mr. Eakin and asked if he knew anyone who could kill or get rid of his wife. He did this because he genuinely wanted her dead. He tried to enlist Mr. Eakin’s assistance to kill Ms. Pimenta.

Circumstances of the Offender

[7] Counsel has provided me with some background relating to Mr. Jaggernauth’s circumstances. He is 53 years old. Born in Guyana, he came to Canada as a child in 1974. He lost his father in 1981, at the age of 11, and had to grow up quickly. Indeed, his mother describes him as having worked from the time he was 14. He lost his oldest sister in 1987. He has pursued post-secondary studies and had a successful career, mainly in companies involved in the transportation field. He lost his job at Metrolinx in August 2020 and has not worked since his arrest. His finances are described as being in a state of tumult.

[8] In his personal life, Mr. Jaggernauth was married in 1993. He has 4 adult children and two grandchildren. In August 2021, he re-married, a marriage that continues today and provides him with a source of love and support.

[9] Mr. Jaggernauth has had some health challenges and I am advised that he is on medication for depression.

[10] Some additional information about Mr. Jaggernauth was provided through two letters of support.

[11] One letter is from his mother. She describes him as a kind-hearted and well-loved person who puts the needs of others ahead of his own. He is described as a hard worker, and as a loving and caring son, father and uncle for his sister’s two daughters.

[12] The second letter is from Wade Bowers, a senior pastor at Harvest Time Revival. He has known Mr. Jaggernauth for the past 5 years and describes him as a well-liked and friendly person who has a heart of passion and forgiveness. He says that he would hire Mr. Jaggernauth, would keep company with him and would recommend him as a diligent worker and caring person. Over the last 3 years, he says that Mr. Jaggernauth has worked hard to complete 18 courses in biblical studies. Paster Bowers admires Mr. Jaggernauth’s determination to seek out knowledge and insight.

[13] Mr. Jaggernauth declined to say anything when offered his right of allocution.

Victim Impact

[14] Ms. Pimenta read a Victim Impact Statement. It is, in many respects, a miracle that Ms. Pimenta survived the crossbow attack of the hitman. She suffered many physical injuries that will forever impair her enjoyment life and ability to live it to the fullest. She and her family have also suffered the emotional consequences of Mr. Jaggernauth’s actions in betraying her trust and trying to have her killed. She has shown enormous resilience since this terrible offence, though she will suffer the consequences of it for the rest of her life.

Analysis

[15] Sentencing begins from the principle that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender. This principle is codified as the “fundamental principle” of sentencing in s. 718.1 of the Code. Sentencing judges must also consider the principle of parity, codified in s. 718.2(b) of the Code. Sentencing ranges, while of assistance, are guidelines and not hard and fast rules: R. v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras. 30-32; 37; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 60.

Aggravating Factors

[16] There are a number of significant aggravating factors present in this case. These include:

a. The impact on the victim, Ms. Pimenta, has been devastating and life changing;

b. That the offences were committed against a former intimate partner, a statutory aggravating factor under s. 718.2(a)(ii);

c. The court must give effect to the statutory factor set out in s. 718.201 that a court imposing a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of an intimate partner, or former partner, must consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims. In this case, Ms. Pimenta lived alone and was in a precarious and vulnerable situation, particularly when she had instigated family law proceedings against Ms. Jaggernauth;

d. Ms. Pimenta left Mr. Jaggernauth and tried to conceal from him where she was living. He stalked her and had her attacked at the home, where she should have been able to safely reside, away from him. That the offence took place at her home where she was entitled to feel safe is a further aggravating factor;

e. This was a contract hit that involved some significant planning and deliberation. Mr. Jaggernauth tried to engage Mr. Eakin, whom he knew was associated with a criminal underworld. He then pursued an alternative plan that involved a disguised hit man using a concealed crossbow. This level of planning aggravates the circumstances of the offence;

f. Attempted murder is an offence carrying a high degree of moral culpability. Indeed, the moral culpability is as high as it would be for murder because it is only through sheer luck on Mr. Jaggernauth’s part that Ms. Pimenta was not killed.

Mitigating Factors

[17] At the same time, there are important mitigating factors here:

a. Mr. Jaggernauth has no criminal record and is a first offender;

b. Mr. Jaggernauth has a pro-social history that includes a strong work ethic, long-standing employment and a supportive family life;

c. Mr. Jaggernauth has been on house arrest since his release from jail on bail on August 27, 2020. This is more than three years.

Conclusion as to a Fit Sentence and Ancillary Orders

[18] The cases before me make clear that the overarching sentencing principles are denunciation and deterrence. The cases reveal a broad range of sentences for attempted murder in a domestic context, with the low end being in the 8 and one half to 9 year range and the high end being 18-20 years. I have carefully reviewed the cases filed by counsel, including R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36; R. v. Drakes-Simon, 2023 ONSC 4249; R. v. Kerr, 2023 ONSC 3892; and R. v. Shier, 2018 ONSC 5624.

[19] In imposing a fit sentence, a sentencing judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, at paras. 32-32; R. v. Harasuik, 2023 ONCA 584 at paras. 2, 21-22.

[20] I have considered the particular circumstances of the offences and offender and the principles of sentence that I have set out, as well as the joint position proposed by counsel for a sentence of 16 and one half years. In my view, the proposed joint position is fit and appropriate. Certainly, it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not contrary to the public interest. I will, therefore, accede to the joint position as I conclude that it gives effect to the relevant principles of sentencing as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors that are present in this case.

[21] Mr. Jaggernauth please stand: I sentence you to 16 and one half years imprisonment, less 22 days of credit for pre-sentence custody. This is based on a sentence of 16 and one half years for the attempt murder and 6 years concurrent for the counselling offence.

[22] In addition, I make the following ancillary orders:

a. A weapons prohibition order under s.109 for a period of 10 years;

b. A DNA order under s. 487.051;

c. A non communication order under s. 743.21 in relation to Ms. Pimenta while Mr. Jaggernauth is in custody;

d. The victim fine surcharge is waived.

[23] I want to thank all counsel for their hard work and diligence in handling this challenging case.

J.W. Woollcombe J.

Released: September 26, 2023