Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR-24-003 Date: 2024-03-21
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on MARCH 21, 2024 at ORANGEVILLE, Ontario
APPEARANCES: H. Bajwa, Counsel for the Crown R. Sengupta, Counsel for Christopher Anthony Vanhouten
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Reasons for Sentence ...starting at page one Transcript Ordered: March 21, 2024 Transcript Completed: March 31, 2024 Ordering Party Notified: April 2, 2024
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024
...PROCEEDINGS RECORDED, BUT NOT TRANSCRIBED (12:06 p.m.)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
CONLAN J. (Orally):
Mr. Vanhouten is before the court for sentencing on two charges that he entered guilty pleas to today — count three of the indictment, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and count four of the indictment, possession of a prohibited device while prohibited from possessing that device by court order.
In terms of the facts of the offences, succinctly stated, Mr. Vanhouten was in possession of a significant quantity of cocaine. The search of his property revealed approximately 148 grams of cocaine in one location and in a second location another approximately 960 grams of cocaine. As well, at the time Mr. Vanhouten was in possession of a weapon that he was prohibited from being in possession of by reason of a court order that was made not very long before the offence date.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Vanhouten is still fairly young, 23 years of age, and he has a very young child, a two-year-old son. Mr. Vanhouten has a history of addiction to narcotics since the time that he was a young teenager. He also has a family history of addiction, as his father was an addict of both alcohol and narcotics. I will have more to say in a moment about some of the personal circumstances of Mr. Vanhouten as they relate to mitigating factors to be considered on sentencing.
The positions of the parties are as follows: the Crown is asking for a sentence in the penitentiary in the range of five years and the defence is asking that the court consider a penitentiary sentence that is somewhat shorter than that, being in the range of 44 to 48 months in custody. The Crown is also asking for a forfeiture order and the only point of disagreement about that order is whether a particular cell phone is to be forfeited to the Crown.
With regard to aggravating factors on sentence, in my view there are three main aggravating factors in this case.
First, the quantity of the cocaine. This is a sizeable quantity, some 148 grams in one location and 916 grams in another location. That is a lot of cocaine.
Second, it is aggravating that Mr. Vanhouten was on a house arrest bail at the time that he committed these offences.
And third, aggravating is the fact that Mr. Vanhouten is not a first offender and not a first offender when it comes to narcotics offences.
His criminal record has been marked Exhibit One on the sentencing and that criminal history includes a conviction from 2021 in Orangeville for possession of a schedule one substance for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Vanhouten received a custodial sentence for that conviction, a short one, but a custodial sentence nonetheless. As well, on the same date, May 11, 2021 in Orangeville Mr. Vanhouten was also convicted of another count of possession of a schedule one substance for the purpose of trafficking and on that conviction he received a custodial sentence. Later in 2021 here in Milton, October 27th, Mr. Vanhouten was convicted of possession of a schedule one substance for the purpose of trafficking and received a six-month conditional sentence, but that was on top of considerable pre-sentence custody of 167 days. So Mr. Vanhouten has not the worst criminal record for narcotics convictions, but an unenviable criminal record and that is aggravating on sentencing.
There are several mitigating factors in this case — the very early guilty pleas by Mr. Vanhouten, which are, in and of themselves, an expression of his remorse and an acceptance of responsibility. The guilty pleas have saved the administration of justice considerable time in terms of a trial of these offences and the guilty pleas come in the face of what may have been some triable issues in this case. The pleas are important and are mitigating on sentence.
As well, Mr. Vanhouten is an addict and that is a mitigating factor on sentence in the sense that he ought to be treated differently than an offender who traffics narcotics or possesses narcotics for the purpose of trafficking exclusively for commercial gain and absent any addiction. That type of offender is not, per se, Mr. Vanhouten, as Mr. Vanhouten is a longtime addict since he was a young teenager. His addiction difficulties had been inherited from his father and so there is a family cycle of addiction, which I am sure has been difficult for Mr. Vanhouten to escape.
In addition to his addiction issues, which started when Mr. Vanhouten was a young teenager, he also had a difficult childhood despite, I am sure, the good intentions of his mother in the sense that Mr. Vanhouten was, at least in part, neglected by his father.
A further mitigating factor is that Mr. Vanhouten has shown some willingness to change and some commitment to addressing his addiction problems, and that is evident by the fact that Mr. Vanhouten has completed in the past a comprehensive residential rehabilitation program dedicated to addiction issues. And Mr. Vanhouten’s commitment is also evidenced by the many programs that he has completed in recent months while in custody at Maplehurst, which I might add is not an easy environment for an offender to be in and not an easy environment for an offender to be rehabilitated through programming because of the conditions at the correctional facility.
Mr. Vanhouten has completed and has obtained certificates for many programs, more than half a dozen at Maplehurst. And while completing those programs during his time at Maplehurst Mr. Vanhouten has been a well-behaved offender in that he has an unblemished conduct record. There have been no misconduct occurrences against Mr. Vanhouten while at Maplehurst.
So as I indicated there are several mitigating factors in this case. I think that the position advanced by the Crown is a reasonable one, but I am prepared to impose a sentence on Mr. Vanhouten that is lower than five years in the penitentiary in light of the several mitigating factors that I have outlined.
Sentencing is a highly individualized process. The court should consider the principles of sentencing and in this case the most important principles of sentencing are denunciation of Mr. Vanhouten’s unlawful conduct, deterrence, both general and specific, and rehabilitation for Mr. Vanhouten so that he can finally beat his long-standing addiction issues.
Considering those principles of sentencing and the aggravating and mitigating factors at play, I think that a fit sentence for this offender is in the range suggested by Ms. Sengupta.
The sentence to be imposed by the court is 45 months in custody, which is just slightly in excess of the 3.7 years recommended by Ms. Sengupta. 45 months in custody on count number 3, the possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. On count number 4 the sentence is 12 months in custody concurrent.
The victim fine surcharges are waived in the circumstances because Mr. Vanhouten has been in custody for a while already and will continue to be in custody for a while.
That just leaves the cell phone and I am sympathetic to Mr. Vanhouten’s position, but given that the prosecution of this case, in general, is not over — it is over for Mr. Vanhouten, but it is not over in its totality — I do not think it would be wise for the court to approve of the white and gold cell phone to be returned to Mr. Vanhouten. So I will be signing the forfeiture order as presented by the Crown with no exceptions. So that does mean, Mr. Vanhouten, that the white and gold cellular phone will be forfeited to the Crown.
Now, I do want to say something on the record. This is not a court order because I do not think I have jurisdiction to make this order, but I want it put on the record so that anybody ordering a transcript of this could share it with the authorities. I highly recommend that the police cooperate and try their best to preserve the personal photos that are on the white and gold cell phone so that Mr. Vanhouten can have those photos back some way. I see no reason why doing so would prejudice any ongoing prosecution. I see no reason why doing so would be impossible or even impractical and I think that there is a just reason for the court highly recommending that the police do so. I know that the police are not necessarily in the business of trying to satisfy the personal requests of offenders, but this is a case where Mr. Vanhouten is trying to change his ways and he is a father of a very young child, and these photos that are on the phone have obvious sentimental value to Mr. Vanhouten. And so I would strongly encourage the authorities to do whatever they can to preserve those personal photos and have them returned some way somehow to Mr. Vanhouten.
Ms. Bajwa, are there any other ancillary orders being sought by the Crown? I think this is a mandatory s. 109 matter.
MS. BAJWA: Yes, Your Honour, and I think [indiscernible] as well it’s a, a secondary designated for DNA, so I’m going to be asking for DNA as well.
THE COURT: Ms. Sengupta, do you have any submissions about those matters?
MS. SENGUPTA: No, Your Honour. It’s on consent. I believe that the, there is a DNA record already for Mr. Vanhouten, so that’s on consent.
THE COURT: Okay. There is a secondary DNA order made by the court for a sample of Mr. Vanhouten’s DNA.
And there is a s. 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order. The duration of that order, given the prior record, is for life.
So, Mr. Vanhouten, I want to ask you a few questions. First of all, do you understand the sentence, the custodial part of the sentence? It is 45 months in total. 45 months on the cocaine. 12 months concurrent on the weapon matter. You understand that?
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN: Yes.
THE COURT: The secondary DNA order — you must cooperate with the authorities in providing a sample of your DNA, which is usually by way of a blood sample. If you do not cooperate with the authorities you could be charged with a further criminal offence and, if found guilty, you could go to jail. Do you understand that?
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: The s. 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order, you must obey that order. It is not the first time that you have received a court order prohibiting you from possessing certain items, but I want to be clear you must obey the s. 109 order. If you do not you could be charged with a further criminal offence and, if found guilty, you could go to jail for that. Do you understand?
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: The forfeiture order, do you understand that order? Do you have any questions you want to ask me about the forfeiture order?
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN: No.
THE COURT: And that is everything except for the victim fine surcharges the court waived. So, counsel, did I leave anything out or is there anything else that you want to add?
MS. SENGUPTA: No, Your Honour. I think you’ve covered it all, subject to what Ms. Bajwa has to say.
MS. BAJWA: Your Honour, I just ask that the other charges on the indictment be marked withdrawn and that’s it.
THE COURT: The other charges on the indictment are marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown. Okay. Good luck to you, Mr. Vanhouten.
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY VANHOUTEN: Is it possible I speak to my lawyer in a breakout room?
MS. SENGUPTA: I was going to ask....
THE COURT: Yes.
COURTROOM REGISTRAR: Court’s indulgence.
MS. SENGUPTA: Thank you very much, Your Honour, and thank you, Ms. Bajwa...
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. SENGUPTA: ...as well.
MS. BAJWA: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. BAJWA: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can please be excused?
COURTROOM REGISTRAR: Court’s indulgence...
THE COURT: Yes.
COURTROOM REGISTRAR: ...Your Honour? I just have — if I could please just clarify? The DNA secondary is only on count three and the s. 109 is only on count four, is that correct?
THE COURT: No, the DNA is only on count three. You are right about that, but the s. 109 order is also on count three.
COURTROOM REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
...REMAINDER OF PROCEEDINGS RECORDED, BUT NOT TRANSCRIBED
...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED
Certification
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Kendra Kelly certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of Rex. v. Christopher Anthony Vanhouten in the Superior Court of Justice held at 10 Louisa Street, Orangeville, ON. taken from Recording No. 0611_203_20240321_103937_10_CONLANC.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
March 21, 2024 (Date) Kendra Kelly (Electronic signature of authorized person)