Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-70000371 Date: 20240216 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: R. v. JASON LACROIX, Defendant

Before: S.F. Dunphy J.

Counsel: Christine Jenkins, for the Crown Ari Goldkind, for the Defendant

Heard at Toronto: January 30, 2024

Reasons for Decision

[1] On October 13, 2023, I accepted the guilty plea of Mr. Lacroix to charges of aggravated assault (s. 268(2)), commission of an indictable offence with an imitation firearm (s. 85(2)) and unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)). I did so after conducting a plea inquiry. In entering this plea, Mr. Lacroix accepted the terms of an Agreed Statement of Facts materially identical to an Agreed Statement of Facts entered as an Exhibit to the prior plea of a co-accused Ms. Brittany Johnston-Brazil arising out of the same incident.

[2] I ordered an assessment be performed under s. 21 of the Mental Health Act at the request of counsel to obtain a better understanding of Mr. Lacroix and his mental health prior to the sentencing hearing. A pre-sentence report was also ordered. The sentencing hearings of Mr. Lacroix and Ms. Johnston-Brazil were conducted separately (but in the presence of both parties and their counsel) on January 30, 2024 with my decision on both matters being reserved to this day.

[3] The circumstances of the offences are substantially identical as is much of the relevant law that I must apply. My contemporary reasons in the Johnston-Brazil matter are intended to be read in tandem with these reasons which shall focus primarily on the points of differentiation between the two and of course the individual circumstances of Mr. Lacroix.

Circumstances of the Offences

[4] I will simply adopt here without repetition my discussion of the circumstances of the Offences in the Johnston-Brazil matter. I would add to that the following additional observations in relation to the degree of participation of Mr. Lacroix in the offences.

[5] While there is certainly evidence in the Agreed Statement of Facts from which a degree of planning can be inferred, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that the evidence permits me to conclude that Mr. Lacroix was aware of what lay in store for Mr. Williamson that night to any level of detail. Mr. Lacroix was aware that Mr. Williamson was coming and of some elements of his relationship with Ms. Johnston-Brazil. He was aware that Ms. Johnston-Brazil was planning a confrontation with him and generally why. When she went downstairs to admit Mr. Williamson to the building and bring him to her apartment, Mr. Lacroix was present and upon Mr. William’s entry into the apartment lifted his shirt to display the imitation firearm. I infer from these facts the common-sense conclusion that he displayed the imitation firearm to overcome any prospect of resistance from Mr. Williamson and thereby to assist Ms. Johnston-Brazil in her planned confrontation and that the “confrontation” he was assisting in would involve preventing Mr. Williamson from leaving at a minimum.

[6] Ms. Johnston-Brazil was slight in stature and build at the time. Mr. Williamson was a relatively tall and solidly-built young man even if Mr. Lacroix was more mature, taller and more solidly built than he. Absent Mr. Lacroix’s presence and the very realistic imitation firearm he displayed at the outset, there is simply no prospect that Ms. Johnston-Brazil could have overcome any resistance Mr. Williamson might have offered, still less that she might have single-handedly succeeded in binding him hand and foot and gagging him in order to torture him for as long as she did. The participation of Mr. Lacroix in the crimes he has pleaded to may not have been particularly kinetic in nature, but his role was far from passive and he played a crucial if supporting role in the unfolding of events even if those events were orchestrated and directed by Ms. Johnston-Brazil. He did not at any time disassociate himself from what was occurring still less assist in bringing it to an end. His guilty plea did not encompass any threats being made to Mr. Williamson nor any physical violence on his part beyond a single kick.

[7] These observations lead me to the conclusion that the relative degree of responsibility as between the two offenders before me in these separate hearings arising from the same circumstances is quite different with Mr. Lacroix’s degree of responsibility being an order of magnitude lesser than hers.

Victim Impact

[8] Once again, I will simply adopt without repetition my discussion of the Victim Impact in the Johnston-Brazil matter. While Mr. Lacroix bears no responsibility for those aspects of the impact of these crimes solely attributable to the threats uttered, I do not consider those harms to be realistically distinguishable from the harms attributable to the overall horror of the situation.

Circumstances of the Offender

[9] Mr. Lacroix was 39 years of age at the time of the offences and is currently 41 years of age. I was provided with a Pre-Sentence Report and with the s. 21 Mental Health Act assessment report from CAMH to assist me in understanding the background of Mr. Lacroix that I needed to understand for sentencing purposes.

[10] The CAMH report informs me that Mr. Lacroix is currently single but has three children from a prior relationship. He has no contact with any of them. He was residing with his then-girlfriend Ms. Johnston-Brazil at the time of the incidents giving rise to the charges.

[11] His parents separated when he was 11 and has no further relationship with either of them. He reported some physical abuse from his father earlier in his life but has no current relationship with him. He has three siblings one of whom has maintained some contact with him over Facebook.

[12] His school years were tumultuous and punctuated with absences and behavioural issues. He left school after Grade 8. He began to work in construction but had difficulties in holding down regular employment due to attendance issues undoubtedly similar to his school experiences.

[13] Mr. Lacroix has had a long and persistent history of substance abuse beginning from age 12. Cannabis use has been a constant. To this was added opiates in pill form, then heroin and more recently crystal meth. He smoked and injected intravenously. He did not report any abuse of alcohol though. Mr. Lacroix has been treated for his substance use issues off and on over the years, occasionally on an in-patient basis. In the course of these treatment programs, he has been diagnosed with having suffered a traumatic brain injury (source unknown) as well as Hepatitis C. His outpatient treatment history was punctuated with forgotten appointments and lack of follow-up although at least some of the forgotten appointments may potentially be laid at the feet of his traumatic brain injury.

[14] The diagnosis offered in the CAMH report was that of a substance use disorder focused on cannabis, stimulant and opiate use disorders.

[15] The Pre-Sentence Report largely reports a similar narrative of Mr. Lacroix’s early years compared to the CAMH report but with some different details in some areas and supplemental details in others.

[16] Mr. Lacroix reported that he has lived on the streets since he was 12 and that both of his parents had alcohol abuse problems. Ministry records appear to indicate that Mr. Lacroix has fathered five children whereas he himself only reported three. He has previously claimed indigenous heritage but appears no longer to do so. Ministry records also indicate that Mr. Lacroix has made some progress towards attaining high school equivalency through adult learning and is only two credits away from graduating from Grade 12 whereas Mr. Lacroix maintains that his education has not proceeded past Grade 8.

[17] The PSR also sheds some light on the existence, origin and effect of a traumatic brain injury indicating that this came from a collision with a taxi while on a bicycle in 2016. This would appear to have a role in his Ontario Disability status as well as the more recent pattern of forgetfulness that has negatively impacted his ability to pursue therapy or treatment.

[18] Mr. Lacroix has a lengthy criminal record. Mr. Goldkind portrayed it as being the sort of record that is typical of a long-term drug addict, and I am inclined to agree. The majority of his convictions appear to be related to theft, possession, minor trafficking and persistent failure to comply and failure to appear charges. Probation has not been particularly successful with him in the past, having been on supervised probation twelve times with little discernible positive impact on his behaviour. His problems are clearly persistent ones.

[19] Overall, the portrait painted of Mr. Lacroix in these reports is of someone who has lived a life very much on society’s margins with a persistent, long-lasting problem with a variety of drugs. While it would not be fair to say that he shows no history of violence at all, it is fair to observe that there seems to be relatively little of it showing up in his record and none approaching the level of the violence that occurred in this case. While the violence in this case is orders of magnitude greater than anything else on his record, it is fair to observe that his responsibility as regards the violence that occurred in this case can fairly be categorized more as enabling than as doing.

[20] Mr. Lacroix has expressed remorse and accepts responsibility for what he has done and participated in. He has pled guilty in this case. He recognizes that he should not have assisted his girlfriend but appears to have done so out of loyalty to her and at least in part under the influence of the drugs he was then consuming. All of this fits the known facts and appears genuine to me.

[21] On the other hand, it does appear that his insight into the events is somewhat less than what might be hoped. He does not appear to fully grasp the impact of these events upon Mr. Williamson according to the PSR author and seems to describe himself as simply being there. To a degree, that is an accurate statement but understates the very substantial enabling role his presence, his timely display of the imitation weapon that he procured for the purpose and his subsequent interventions by pointing the imitation firearm at Mr. Williamson’s head and kicking him in the stomach had in enabling these crimes to occur and continue.

[22] The PSR also notes the considerable handicaps that will face Mr. Lacroix in attempting to cleave to the path of the straight and narrow when he is ultimately released. His substance abuse problems are far from mastered. Any addict is always only one fix away from falling off the wagon (and one day away from getting back on to it). The struggle of dealing with that burden is a life-long struggle but Mr. Lacroix shows signs that he is willing to tackle this problem more diligently now than he has in the past. How far that determination might be expected to persist post-release is of course a matter of conjecture. His traumatic brain injury, limited education and work experience and lack of a solid pro-social network of family and friends put him at high risk of experiencing homelessness and related stressors in the future. On the other hand, his increasing maturity provide some assurance that he will be less likely to fall into quite as many of the pitfalls that his more impulsive youth failed to steer him clear of. Age does frequently have a mellowing effect on much impulsive anti-social behaviour.

[23] The prognosis for his rehabilitation must candidly be described as challenging if the comparator is a first-time offender, well rooted in the community with little risk of reoffending. However, I think the likelihood of his being involved in crimes of this order of magnitude in future is remote given the critical role Ms. Johnston-Brazil played as the catalyst for his participation in these events and his lack of any history suggestive of such tendencies more broadly.

Mitigating Circumstances

[24] Mr. Lacroix’s disabilities arising from the traumatic brain injury he suffered, his relative state of dependence on the clear leader of these events at the time of the incident (he was living in Ms. Johnston-Brazil’s apartment and appears to have been only precariously sheltered in his recent past) must be taken into account as mitigating circumstances. His remorse – while not accompanied by a deep appreciation of the role he played – is nevertheless genuine and in my view correctly identifies the root cause of his involvement in these crimes namely his misguided loyalty to the woman in whose apartment he was living. He did plead guilty and fully recognizes and accepts that there will be a significant price to be paid for his participation in these crimes.

Aggravating Circumstances

[25] I will adopt without repetition my discussion of the aggravating circumstances applicable to Ms. Johnston-Brazil as applicable to Mr. Lacroix subject to the following comments and points of distinction:

a. The domestic/former intimate partner context cannot be applied to Mr. Lacroix who had never met the victim before. b. Mr. Lacroix did not make any threats to harm Mr. Williamson were he to tell others what happened. c. Mr. Lacroix was present but was not directly involved in forcing Mr. Williamson to call his mother and others to plead for money. d. Mr. Lacroix’s criminal record is lengthy and persistent, an aggravating factor not shared with Ms. Johnston-Brazil. This factor requires some elaboration. His record begins in 1998 and continues more or less without interruption until the present time. In most cases he has received sentences of time served (generally in the order of 30-60 days) or suspended sentences coupled with a period of probation which the number and frequency of offences plainly demonstrates has not been of great utility in deterring further criminality. The record is punctuated by convictions for theft, the occasional simple assault, possession or minor trafficking convictions. There are very frequent failure to comply and failure to appear convictions, a common feature of the long-term addict. There are a few gaps that cannot be attributed to time in detention, but not many and not many of any significant duration. A more significant trafficking conviction in 2019 (with a sentence largely accounted for by pre-sentence custody), convictions for extortion and assault all stand out as being relatively exceptional in terms of their severity.

Position of the Parties – Crown

[26] The Crown’s position was that the aggravating circumstances present for Ms. Johnston-Brazil but not for him and the additional charge to which she pleaded guilty are somewhat balanced by the aggravating circumstance of his extensive record and the lack of the mitigating circumstances of relative youth and lack of a record. In the result, the Crown urged that the same sentence should be meted out to Mr. Lacroix as was sought for Ms. Johnston-Brazil for the same crimes namely six years for aggravated assault, one year consecutive for use of the imitation firearm and one year concurrent for unlawful confinement.

Position of the Parties – Defence

[27] Mr. Goldkind’s position for the defence was comparatively straightforward. He submitted that a clear differentiation should be made as to the relative degrees of responsibility of the two offenders with Mr. Lacroix receiving a markedly lower sentence than Ms. Johnston-Brazil by reason of his lesser degree of responsibility. He suggested that were this court to accept the Crown’s sentencing submission of a global sentence of seven years for Ms. Johnston-Brazil, then an appropriate sentence for Mr. Lacroix would be in the global four to five year range.

Application of Sentencing Principles

[28] Once again, I do not propose to re-iterate all that I have written in the Johnston-Brazil matter when it comes to the law being applied in this case. I shall focus instead on the points of distinction – which tend in both directions – that I must balance.

[29] I cannot agree with the Crown’s submission that the sentencing factors as between the two offenders are in a rough state of balance warranting an identical outcome. There is no doubt at all that Ms. Johnston-Brazil was the leader and Mr. Lacroix the follower in this episode. While the participation of both was a necessary ingredient, there can be no question about who was the leader and who was the follower. This was not an equal partnership. Mr. Lacroix had never met Mr. Williamson and had no role in inviting him over. He did not initiate any of the violence and there is no suggestion that he planned or encouraged any of it actively. He certainly enabled and assisted and at times actively participated even if his role was a subordinate one to hers.

[30] Mr. Lacroix’s degree of responsibility for these crimes is very clearly an order of magnitude lower than hers. The parity principle requires that their respective sentences reflect this difference even if most other sentencing considerations are in a rough state of balance as between the two.

[31] Mr. Lacroix has rarely gone for very long in his adult life without being in trouble with the law. That being said, the time he has spent in detention prior to trial and any reasonable estimate of the time he will be spending as a result of this incident is far, far longer than any prior period of detention. As out of character as these offences are, it seems equally clear to me that the removal of Ms. Johnston-Brazil from the equation provides a very high degree of assurance that he will never be involved in anything remotely like this ever again. Absent the catalyst of Ms. Johnston-Brazil or someone very much like her, there is little reason to believe that Mr. Lacroix would be at significant risk of becoming involved in anything like the horrific events he participated in. I believe that his insights into what led him to this juncture are at least sufficient to arm him against repeating the pattern should fate lead him near such a relationship in future.

[32] In view of these observations, I find that I must agree with Mr. Goldkind that Mr. Lacroix ought to receive a sentence that is materially less severe than the one meted out to Ms. Johnston-Brazil in these circumstances. In my view, a fit and proper global sentence would one of five years less pre-sentence custody of which four years for aggravated assault and one consecutive year for the use of the imitation firearm.

Disposition

[33] For the foregoing reasons, to be read in the context of my reasons in the sentencing of Mr. Johnston-Brazil, I sentence Mr. Lacroix to a global sentence of FIVE years less pre-sentence custody to be allocated as follows:

a. Aggravated Assault (s. 268(2)): four years; b. Unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)): one year concurrent with (a) above; c. Use of imitation firearm in commission (s. 85(2)(a)): one year consecutive to (a) above.

[34] The following ancillary orders shall be made:

a. Mr. Lacroix shall be credited with a total of 545 days of presentence custody at a rate of 1.5 days to 1 for a total presentence custody credit of 817 days. b. A DNA order in respect of the primary designated offences of aggravated assault and unlawful confinement under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code; c. A 10-year prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and d. An order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting contact with Mr. Williamson or his family.

[35] Orders accordingly to be prepared for my signature.

S.F. Dunphy J. Date: February 16, 2024