COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-19795
DATE: 2023/12/14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Lance Crossley
Accused
Michael Purcell, for the Crown
Self-Represented with the assistance of Amicus Curiae, Biagio Del Greco
HEARD: December 7, 2023
REASONS ON sentence
[1] The Accused, Lance Crossley was found guilty after a jury trial of one incident of threatening to cause bodily harm, one incident of threatening to cause damage to property, two incidents of intimidation of a justice system participant, and two incidents of criminal harassment.
Background
[2] In March 2018, a statue of Buddha that was in front of the Buddhist Temple on Heron Road in Ottawa was severely damaged. A steel bar was left behind at the scene. Mr. Crossley’s fingerprint was found on the metal bar. Det. Evraire was assigned to investigate the matter. The members of the Buddhist Temple did not want charges to be laid. So, Det. Evraire issued a warning to Mr. Crossley. In May of 2018, the same statue was again damaged. Mr. Crossley was arrested by Det. Evraire and charged with mischief.
[3] The trial on the May 2018 charges was held on April 2 & 3, 2019 and Mr. Crossley was placed on a common law peace bond for 12 months. The only conditions were to stay away from the Buddhist Temple and keep the peace.
[4] On April 8, 2019, Mr. Crossley sent Det. Evraire an email with religious content and suggesting that Det. Evraire not continue to investigate him should there be another incident.
[5] On February 25, 2020, Mr. Crossley sent Det. Evraire an email advising him that he intended to further damage the statue of Buddha on Heron Road. He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace bond and threats to damage property.
[6] The trial on the February 2020 charges was held on January 18, 2021, and Mr. Crossley was convicted of both offences. On January 20, 2021, Mr. Crossley sent a series of emails to Det. Evraire. He also sent an email to judges’ chambers and delivered a letter to the courthouse intended for the trial judge.
[7] As a consequence of those emails and the letter, Mr. Crossley was charged with the offences before the court.
Circumstances of the offences
Threat to cause bodily harm (count #1)
[8] This count relates to both the letter and an email sent to a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. In these communications, Mr. Crossley states, ‘Sound the alarm, Her Majesty is in jeopardy of losing her life/command – by extension this also includes her servants (those who have sworn loyalty to her). Later in the same email, he indicated ‘we will surely be saying goodbye to Her Majesty soon and/or some/many of her servants.’
Threat to cause damage to property (count #2)
[9] Elizabeth Portolese is a probation officer. She testified that she had several meetings with Lance Crossley to prepare a Pre-Sentence Report in relation to the January 2021 conviction. In the third meeting, on March 3, 2021, she testified that Mr. Crossley told her his goal was to destroy the Buddha statue located at 1481 Heron Road. She indicated that Mr. Crossley asked to have that information included in the report and he also asserted to her that he was making a threat.
Intimidation of justice system participants (counts 3 & 6)
[10] Lance Crossley sent an email and letter to a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. In that letter, Mr. Crossley asked the judge to declare a mistrial. The tone of the letter was threatening.
[11] In the email, Mr. Crossley refers to his conviction in January 2021 by the Queen as represented by the trial judge and states, ‘Lance Crossley has issued the command for God to slay her Majesty…it is in the interest of her Majesty to have the command reversed before it is too late’.
[12] Mr. Crossley delivered a letter to the courthouse addressed to the trial judge. The contents of the letter are very similar to the content of the email sent to judges’ chambers. He states,
Sound the alarm, Her Majesty is in jeopardy of losing her life/command – by extension this also includes her servants (those who have sworn loyalty to her). […] On January 20, 2021 in courtroom #8 Her Majesty through Justice Julie Bourgeois has found Lance Crossley guilty of an offense for which under God’s laws would have been acquitted. Consequently, Lance Crossley has issued the command for God to slay Her Majesty. [..] It is in the interest of her Majesty to have the command reversed before it its too late. Urgent action is therefore required. Lance Crossley is urgently appealing to Justice Bourgeois to declare a mistrial. If her neck is as stiff and obstinate as Pharaoh’s neck was in the days of Moses then we will surely be saying goodbye to Her Majesty soon and/or some/many of her servants.
[13] He also sent emails to Det. Evraire. In one of those emails, he asks Det. Evraire to ‘grease the wheels for my appeal of the conviction….an appeal will provide [the Queen] with another opportunity to do the right thing.’ He goes on to state ‘if and only if these demands are met will I scale back on my campaign. Make no mistake I am at war with Canada. God is my ‘weapon’, and I operate within the parameters of the law that you know EXCEPT where that law comes into conflict with God’s laws.’
Criminal harassment (counts 4 & 5)
[14] Mr. Crossley was found guilty of two counts of criminal harassment. The first count specifically relates to repeated communications, while the second count relates to threatening conduct.
[15] Mr. Crossley sent a series of emails to Det. Evraire, who was the investigating officer.
[16] In one email, Mr. Crossley stated that ‘A court under her majesty the queen’s command has found me guilty of an offense for which I would be acquitted under God’s laws. If my assertion is correct, then her command is in serious jeopardy. My ‘God slay the queen’ has now officially begun.’ He also requested that Det. Evraire ‘grease the wheels for my appeal of the conviction’ and ‘unless I am breaking the laws of the Criminal Code of Canada that don’t come in conflict with God’s laws, I don’t want to be bothered by the queen – that means anybody in her service’.
[17] In a later email, Mr. Crossley stated ‘Sound the alarm. Her Majesty is in jeopardy of losing her life/command’.
[18] In an email sent on February 2, 2021, he says ‘my plan is simple – constant repetition of what you consider to be an offense (which to me is no offense at all). He goes on to talk about having been approached by two police officers and he states, ‘if they come for my life then they should be prepared and expect o pay with their own lives.’
[19] On March 17, 2021, Mr. Crossley sent a last email to Det. Evraire. That email states the following:
I have called on God to swiftly execute judgment on Her Majesty and her representatives (servant) which includes you. You made an oath to serve Her Majesty. Her Majesty made an oath to maintain God’s laws. Canada’s constitution recognizes the supremacy of God. The logic and hierarchical structure are in place for a peace officer such as yourself to not enforce any criminal code law that comes in conflict with God’s laws. God’s first commandment is: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. The putting up of that abominable statue on Heron Road is in violation of this commandment. That statue should not exist. You were participatory in prosecuting me for my part in wanting to destroy this statue – a thing that ought not to done. Because of your direct participation in my prosecution, I fear for your safety, and for the safety of those you love. I suspect God will strike those involved with my prosecution first. If you begin to notice God’s hand on you and/or your loved ones in not a good way, or if you believe my words to you might have some merit then be sure to let God know you are sorry and be sure to learn God’s laws so you don’t find yourself in this type of predicament again. The sooner the better. I will have one more message for you before I get sentenced this Friday. I will let you know what my mission is, and I will come to know if you have taken heed to these my sincere words. Please consider the matter diligently. Who likes carnage? Not me.
Circumstances of the offender
[20] After his conviction by the jury, the court ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report and a s. 21 mental health assessment. Mr. Crossley did not participate in either process. No pre-sentence report was prepared.
[21] On the other hand, Dr. Gojer, who was asked to prepare the mental health assessment, reviewed all the information with which he was provided and made certain comments and recommendations.
[22] The court had available to it a summary of the pre-sentence report prepared in 2021. This report indicated that Mr. Crossley has one sister and two step siblings. He was raised by his mother and stepfather. His youth was uneventful. He is presently estranged from his family.
[23] He has one child from whom he is estranged, allegedly because his son does not follow ‘the Commandments’.
[24] He completed high school at the age of 23 and started attending university. He studied biology and computer science and is one year short of completing his degree.
[25] Mr. Crossley has held a variety of jobs, including a self-employed painter, retail, general labour and bartender.
[26] During his first term of imprisonment, he ‘came to know God was real’ and he became ‘God’s servant’. He has not consumed alcohol or drugs since 2005 and was a social drinker prior to that time.
[27] Mr. Crossley has a criminal record dating back to 2001. His most recent convictions – in 2016 and 2021 – relate to damage to property based on Mr. Crossley’s beliefs.
[28] Mr. Crossley has been involved in the mental health system off and on since 2001. However, he does not acknowledge any mental health disorders.
[29] Dr. Gojer’s conclusions in relation to Mr. Crossley are the following:
- There is a history of schizophrenia;
- There is a history of nonadherence to medication;
- There is a history of threats of harm to individuals related to government and to property;
- There are concerns that he has views of a religious nature that indicate some degree of intolerance of others’ sentiments and beliefs;
- His written communications indicate that he has attitudes and beliefs suggesting that he is morally justified in his intended actions and in his beliefs;
- The presence of a diagnosis in the past of schizophrenia and ongoing beliefs now that seem discordant with contemporary social views and attitudes, raise concerns that there are delusional ideas at play, possibly thought disorder and that he believes that he is morally right in his views; and
- Lastly, if sentenced, and a period of incarceration is contemplated, classification to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre would be an appropriate setting for him.
[30] Although he was asked whether he wanted to make submissions on his own behalf at his sentencing hearing, Mr. Crossley declined to say anything.
[31] However, amicus did make some submissions in relation to what might be an appropriate sentence for Mr. Crossley.
Victim Impact Statements
[32] No victim impact statements were prepared for this sentencing hearing.
[33] Despite that fact, I note that Justice Bourgeois recused herself from Mr. Crossley’s sentencing after receiving the letter and email in January 2021. Another judge completed the sentencing.
[34] In addition, Det. Evraire’s testimony at trial indicated that he was significantly emotionally affected by the emails sent to him, particularly the final email sent in March 2021.
Principles of Sentencing
[35] Section 718 of the Criminal Code[^1] sets out the governing principles of sentencing. That section states:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to 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.
[36] There are several other sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code that have an impact on this sentencing hearing. Firstly, s. 718.1 states:
A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[37] Secondly, s. 718.2(d) points out that, ‘an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances.’
[38] Finally, s. 718.02 states,
When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under …paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.
[39] There are two aspects to the principle of deterrence; they are general deterrence and specific deterrence. Specific deterrence relates to the offender himself and aims to deter that offender from re‑offending. General deterrence relates to the belief that an appropriate sentence will have the effect of deterring other members of the public from committing similar offences. In this case, both specific and general deterrence are applicable.
[40] Offences involving attempts to obstruct justice or interfere with a witness ‘go to the very heart and foundation of our criminal justice system’. [^2] These offences are treated seriously as reflected in the fact that the maximum sentence for a s. 423.1 offence is 14 years.
[41] Justice Saunders in R. v. Hall stated,
Obstruction of justice or attempting to obstruct justice strikes at our system of a lawful society. The message must be clear that this type of interference with the community system for handling criminal offences will not be tolerated. It is for this reason that the courts must act firmly to express society’s disapproval and denunciation of such conduct.[^3]
[42] In addition, as the court in R. v. Lilly noted, ‘section 423.1 protects individuals who work in the justice system and who, by nature of their employment, are vulnerable to attack.[^4] Consequently, such offences – as a general proposition – attract a penitentiary term of imprisonment.[^5]
[43] The key sentencing principle in criminal harassment cases is also denunciation and deterrence.[^6] This offence is also treated seriously by the justice system as evidenced by the fact the maximum sentence is 5 years.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
[44] Crown counsel argues that there are several aggravating factors in this case. They are:
- the timeframe of offences in that the six offences were committed over a period 45 days;
- the number of victims. There were three victims – Det. Evraire, Justice Bourgeois and the Buddhist temple;
- Mr. Crossley’s criminal record; and
- the fact Mr. Crossley engaged in persistent, goal-oriented behaviour.
[45] With respect to the last factor, the Crown referred to R. v. Blackman. In that case, the offender engaged in a campaign of intimidation against an undercover officer. The court noted that the offender had ‘time to think about what he was doing; this was not a spur of the moment decision.’ The sentence imposed was two-and-one-half years.
Positions of counsel
[46] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence is 2.5 years jail. He notes that Mr. Crossley was in custody pending his trial for 60 days, prior to his release after a bail review. As a result, his sentence should be reduced by 90 days given PSC is generally credited at a rate of 1.5:1.
[47] He is also seeking three ancillary orders: a section 109 order for 10 years, a DNA order and a non-communication order pursuant to s. 743.21 in relation to Det. Chris Evraire and Justice Julie Bourgeois.
[48] The Crown argues that there is a strong probability that if Mr. Crossley remains untreated, he will re-offend in a similar manner. He suggests that Mr. Crossley’s refusal to participate in the s. 21 mental health assessment indicates that Mr. Crossley does not want his mental health issues to be considered on sentencing. The Crown also states that Mr. Crossley remains committed to his mission to destroy anything that in his view represents a contravention of God’s law and therefore, that Mr. Crossley needs to be deterred in the strongest terms.
[49] Amicus argues that this case has some unique circumstances. Firstly, the offences did not occur in the context of organized crime or another criminal enterprise. Rather, Mr. Crossley’s behaviour could be seen as self-serving – avoidance of being convicted of an offence.
[50] Amicus notes that the messages are focused on Mr. Crossley’s sincerely held belief that he committed no criminal act, and he argues that this fact should be taken into consideration is assessing an appropriate sentence.
[51] Amicus suggests there is at least some information that there is some mental health issue at play in the present offences and while the evidence might not justify a reduction of sentence on compassionate grounds, the presence of mental health issues should impact the assessment of moral blameworthiness.
[52] Finally, amicus suggested that a conditional sentence should be considered. He argues that a conditional sentence of two years followed by a three-year probation order would ensure that Mr. Crossley is supervised for a significant period of time. In addition, amicus states that Mr. Crossley has followed his conditions since his release in May 2021 and there is no reason not to believe that Mr. Crossley would not follow any conditions that the court imposed.
Analysis
[53] I note at the outset that the courts have repeatedly stated that sentencing ranges are not a straitjacket and that sentencing remains an individualized exercise.
[54] However, I agree with Crown counsel that the offences committed by Mr. Crossley are serious and that a denunciatory sentence is required.
[55] I accept that the aggravating factors pointed out by Crown counsel do impact on the assessment of an appropriate sentence in this case.
[56] The most troubling aspect of this sentencing is what emphasis, if any, should be placed on Mr. Crossley’s mental health issues.
[57] As noted by Dr. Gojer, Mr. Crossley did not participate in the preparation of the most recent mental health assessment and as such, there is no up-to-date diagnosis. However, Dr. Gojer noted that ‘the presence of a diagnosis in the past of schizophrenia and ongoing beliefs now that seem discordant with contemporary social views and attitudes, raise concerns that there are delusional ideas at play, possibly thought disorder and that he believes that he is morally right in his views.’
[58] Crown counsel provided the court with the case of R. v. Prioriello. In that case, the offender argued that the trial judge should have considered his mental health issues as part of his sentencing. The court stated,
In order for a mental illness to be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, the offender must show a causal link between his illness and his criminal conduct, that is, the illness is an underlying reason for his aberrant conduct.
Further, there must be evidence that a lengthy sentence would have a severe negative effect on the offender such that it should be reduced on compassionate grounds.[^7]
[59] In the present case, there is no formal diagnosis and no evidence of a nexus between any mental illness and the commission of the offence. At best, Dr. Gojer has drawn an inference from the past diagnosis of schizophrenia and Mr. Crossley’s behaviour to suggest that mental illness may underlie his present criminal conduct. Based on that limited information, I am prepared to take Mr. Crossley’s possible mental illness into account in determining the appropriate sentence, but that consideration does not extend as far as reducing any sentence imposed on compassionate grounds.
[60] I am also concerned by the fact that Mr. Crossley has no insight into the impact that his offences have had on his victims and the fact he believes he has a moral right to commit offences that he believes are consistent with God’s laws. In my view, this belief makes him a risk to reoffend.
[61] Taking into consideration all the factors set out above, I sentence Mr. Crossley to two years, three months custody. That sentence will be reduced by pre-sentence custody of 60 days, credited on a basis of 1.5:1 for a total reduction of 90 days.
[62] The sentence will be distributed as follows:
- On counts 3 & 6 – two years, three months, concurrent to one another.
- On counts 4 & 5 – 6 months, concurrent to one another and concurrent to all other counts; and
- On counts 1 & 2 – 3 months, concurrent to one another and concurrent to all other counts.
[63] The effect of the reduction for pre-sentence custody is to bring the sentence to two years. Consequently, the custodial portion of the sentence will be followed by a three-year probation order, with the statutory conditions, conditions not to communicate with Det. Chris Evraire, Justice Julie Bourgeois and any member of the Buddhist Temple at 1481 Heron Road, and a condition not to attend within 100 meters of the Buddhist Temple.
[64] In addition, there will be the following ancillary orders:
- Weapons’ prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Code for a period of 10 years;
- DNA order; and
- Section 743.21 order of non-communication with Det. Chris Evraire, Justice Julie Bourgeois or any member of the Buddhist Temple at 1481 Heron Road while in custody.
Justice J. Parfett
Date: December 14, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-19795
DATE: 2023/12/14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: His Majesty the King
and
Lance Crossley, Accused
BEFORE: Justice J. Parfett
COUNSEL: M. Purcell, for the Crown
Accused, Self-Represented with the assistance of Amicus Curiae, B. Del Greco
reasons on sentence
Parfett J.
Released: December 14, 2023
[^1]: R.S.C. 1985, Chap. C-46. [^2]: R. v. Williams, 2016 ONCA 937 at para. 13. [^3]: R. v. Hall, 2001 BCCA 74 at para. 12. Cited with approval in R. v. Hopwood, 2020 ONCA 608 at para. 23. [^4]: R. v. Lilly, 2023 NSCA 80 at para. 104. [^5]: See Hopwood at para, 24. [^6]: R. v. Nolan, 2019 ONCA 969 at para. 65. [^7]: 2012 ONCA 63 at paras. 11 & 12.