Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-23-00000369-0000
Date: 2025-04-30
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Ricardo Gomez

Appearances:
Jason Nicol, for the Crown
Robert Geurts and M. Savitsky, for Ricardo Gomez
Heard: November 18 and December 17, 2024

Judge: Kelly

Overview

[1] Mr. Ricardo Gomez pleaded guilty to one count of breach of trust. While an officer with the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”), he committed a breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office by providing confidential information on several occasions to a member of the public. In doing so, he committed an offence contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code.

[2] Mr. Gomez appears before me now for sentencing. Crown counsel seeks a conditional sentence of four to six months in addition to 18 months of probation. Counsel for Mr. Gomez seeks the imposition of a conditional discharge.

[3] I find that the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence order for a period of six months. I decline to impose an order of probation. What follows are my reasons.

The Facts

[4] The facts were set out in an Agreed Statement of Facts and will be summarized here.

[5] On September 9, 2021, Mr. Joseph Issa was arrested by police in Montreal. Two cell phones in his possession were seized. Mr. Gomez’s phone number was contained in Mr. Issa’s list of contacts. A forensic examination of Mr. Issa’s phone uncovered hundreds of messages exchanged with Mr. Gomez.

[6] On December 2, 2021, Mr. Gomez was arrested. Two cell phones in his possession were seized from him. A further investigation ensued. It revealed that Mr. Gomez committed a breach of trust in connection with his duties as an officer of the TPS, as follows:

a. On November 5, 2020, Mr. Gomez received six photographs of a white 2008 Volkswagen Rabbit car, including the Vehicle Identification Number from Mr. Issa. Thereafter, Mr. Gomez accessed the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) database and discovered the name and personal information regarding the car’s owner. He then checked the Canadian Police Intelligence Centre (“CPIC”), confirming personal information about the owner. He provided that information to Mr. Issa who then asked for the owner’s driver’s license number. Mr. Gomez obliged, accessing both the MTO and CPIC databases a second time. That information was, again, provided to Mr. Issa who used it to replace the ownership on the car.

b. On January 19, 2021, Mr. Issa sent Mr. Gomez three photographs of doors located in a building at 1716 Weston Road (which he owns). The doors had red crosses spray painted on them. Mr. Gomez was not on duty at the time. Later that night, PC Andrew Darmitz of the TPS (a friend and colleague of Mr. Gomez) accessed a TPS report concerning a Mr. Jay Morris. That information was provided to Mr. Issa. Thereafter, Mr. Gomez sent a text to Mr. Issa with “suggestions” on how to deal with the issue. He suggested that Mr. Issa call the TPS and advise that Mr. Morris had spray painted his property and that he wants Mr. Morris investigated. A second suggestion made by Mr. Gomez was that Mr. Issa report that Mr. Morris spray painted the property and threatened him, among other things. A third suggestion was that Mr. Issa get a tenant to say that they have been threatened. A fourth suggestion was that Mr. Issa report Mr. Morris and have him “accessed under the mental health act”. Mr. Gomez ended the text saying, “I wish we could have spoken in person to give u some sound advice.” He offered various times when he would be free to speak.

c. On January 28, 2021, there was a fire on the second floor of the building at 1716 Weston Road. The estimated damage caused by the fire was $500,000. Twelve tenants were displaced. Mr. Gomez attended at the scene voluntarily. Mr. Gomez noted the names of some of the displaced tenants along with their apartment numbers. He sent photos from his TPS notebook to Mr. Issa’s cell phone which included the names of the displaced tenants and other information about them.

d. On January 29, 2021, Mr. Gomez sent Mr. Issa a 20-second-long video of the fire at 1716 Weston Road and a man escaping through a second-floor window. He also provided Mr. Issa with the TPS and Toronto Fire report numbers.

e. Between December 2020 and December 2021, Mr. Gomez attended at 1716 Weston Road 47 times according to the GPS tracking data on his cruiser. On only 27 of those occasions did he advise TPS dispatch that he was attending. Several of his attendances had no connection with his duties.

[7] In committing the abovementioned acts, Mr. Gomez agreed that he violated the following:

a. The oath of secrecy he signed on April 17, 2001, wherein he swore or affirmed that he would not disclose any information obtained by him in the course of his employment with the TPS except as he may be authorized or required by law.

b. The affirmation/oath of office of a police constable wherein he swore or affirmed that he would (amongst other things) discharge his duties “faithfully, impartially and according to law”.

c. His agreement to abide by the TPS I&IT resources (the Toronto Police Service Information and Technology including access to their computerized systems) requirement not to access information for “personal gain, entertainment, or malicious purposes”.

d. The TPS Standards of Conduct including core values and the Police Services Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct considers an officer to have committed misconduct if he or she engages in a “breach of confidence” by divulging any matter that is his duty to keep secret; communicating any matters connected with the police force with unauthorized persons, etc. It also provides that members shall avoid conflicts of interest and that members shall treat as confidential any information entered in a computerized information system. Further, members shall not release to any unauthorized persons any information in their memo books, etc. The Standards of Conduct also require that no members shall use any facilities for purposes unrelated to their duties. They are to use computers only for police business. Members are also required to inform the communications operation regarding their locations, etc. Generally, constables are not to withhold any information about criminal activity.

e. The Employee Security Statement Form which Mr. Gomez signed on May 7, 2005. It provides that he understood that he was to access databases administered by the MTO for authorized reasons only. Further, he stated that he understood he was not to access information for personal reasons. Mr. Gomez acknowledged that if he failed to comply with the policies, it could result in disciplinary action and/or criminal prosecution.

f. The Police Services Act, RSO 1990, c P.15, Code of Conduct which considers it a breach of confidence if he, amongst other things, “divulges any matter which it is his or her duty to keep secret” and “shows to any person not a member of the police force … any record that is the property of that police force”.

g. The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSO 1990, c M.56, which has as its purpose, amongst other things, to “protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information held by institutions”, etc. Personal information is defined by the Act to include, information relating to an address, telephone number, criminal history, etc. The Act prohibits disclosure of personal information for reasons other than those permitted, such as disclosure to a law enforcement agency to aid in an investigation.

Mr. Gomez’s Background

[8] Mr. Gomez’s background may be summarized as follows:

a. Mr. Gomez was a Corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces. His record of service was from 1993 to 2001.

b. He was employed by the TPS for over 20 years. He was an officer in 12 Division for ten years. During that time, he worked with the community.

c. Mr. Gomez then moved to the Marine Unit for nine years in an effort to address mental health issues that developed as an officer at 12 Division. The court was advised by him that he saved 16 persons from drowning. He also recovered several victims who died from drowning.

d. Mr. Gomez also assisted with the community to address the homeless who were living under the Gardiner Expressway. He also worked with the City of Toronto to deal with the crystal meth crisis and the issues arising from it.

e. Mr. Gomez returned to 12 Division. It was at this time that he knew that something inside him had changed. His mental health was deteriorating, and he was making errors in judgment. He believes his judgment was impeded by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”).

f. For the last three years, Mr. Gomez has been in treatment and is improving. Mr. Gomez participated in a six-month outpatient program to deal with his PTSD. He advises that it was a three-month treatment program that was extended to six months because of the severity of his issues.

g. Mr. Gomez is seeking medical assistance in Hamilton, Ontario, twice a week.

h. Mr. Gomez has been training to become a Personal Support Worker. Previously, he was an assistant to a Personal Support Worker. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is willing to support him through programming and accreditation, but this has been delayed awaiting the outcome of this criminal proceeding. Mr. Gomez cannot be qualified as a Personal Support Worker with a criminal conviction.

i. Mr. Gomez is the father to three children, all girls. He is separated from his wife. The children reside with him.

j. The Children’s Aid Society has been involved. The mother of the girls sees the three children, on average, once every six weeks for supervised visits.

k. Mr. Gomez takes his children, ages 12, 11 and 9 to and from school.

l. Mr. Gomez is the custodian and operational manager of St. Andrew’s Church.

m. Twice a week, Mr. Gomez visits his 88-year-old mother. She is almost bed-ridden and depends on Mr. Gomez and her daughter. Mr. Gomez’s three children make weekly visits to see her as well.

n. On alternating weekends, Mr. Gomez together with his daughters, volunteer at a hospice and for other causes.

o. Mr. Gomez also teaches boxing to children as a volunteer.

p. Mr. Gomez volunteers at a homeless outreach program.

Letters of Support

[9] Several letters were filed on behalf of Mr. Gomez. I have read and considered all of them. I will refer to them briefly here.

a. Several letters were provided by TPS members, including Sergeant Harlen Tinney, Former Toronto Police Staff Sergeant Lesly Hildred, Sergeant Doodnath Churkoo and Police Sergeant Leslee Whidden. They describe Mr. Gomez as having an “excellent” work ethic. He was both professional and responsible. He established a positive relationship with the community. He was a “model colleague”, hardworking, and a “man of integrity”. They are confident that Mr. Gomez has learned from his experience and will make positive contributions to the community in the future.

b. Ms. Dorothy Tucker is a member of the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Maple, Ontario. She advised that when the cleaner of the church retired, Mr. Gomez volunteered to perform his functions until a permanent replacement could be found. He did so for six months and continued to assist with the maintenance of the church thereafter. She considers that Mr. Gomez has been an asset to their community and has been a “blessing” to them.

c. Cyrine, Jessica and Aviana wrote a letter about their father, Mr. Gomez. They described him as “amazing” and “the best dad”. He cares for them daily and takes them camping, hiking, and swimming. He assisted them to start a band, The Chunky Monkeys, that helps with the elderly and raises money for a hospice and other communities. They believe that their dad is a “hero and angel and a gift”.

d. Ms. Ester Gomez and Ms. Cristina Gomez, Mr. Gomez’s sisters, wrote that he is dedicated, supportive of others and hard working. He suffers from PTSD after having endured the emotional weight of his job. They find it hard to reconcile his current situation with the man he has shown them to be all his life. He is single-handedly raising his three daughters and puts his children first. He is selfless and dedicated, also caring for his elderly mother. He is a role model and guide.

e. Various letters of support were filed by associations that have benefitted from the charity of Mr. Gomez’s family and The Chunky Monkeys. For example, Ms. Stephanie Karapita is the executive director of Hospice Vaughan. She advises that Mr. Gomez volunteered from 2019 to 2022, offering support to their clients. He has also fundraised for the Hospice with his daughters and their band. They have raised over $10,000. Ms. Carmela Liparoti, President of the Mississauga Italian Canadian Benevolent Association (“MICBA”) describes Mr. Gomez’s “generous spirit” dedicated to charitable causes. Ms. Laura Tonelli of Montage Support Services advises that Mr. Gomez and his daughters have volunteered and raised funds for various charitable groups including Rotary, Montage and MICBA.

f. Other letters were provided by Ms. Teresa Rego (the owner and operator of HUF Gym Inc.), Dr. Jacqueline Pariat Gupta (a family medicine physician) and Mr. Jamie Maynard (Ken Maynard Insurance Brokers) who speak highly of Mr. Gomez and his contribution to their community.

[10] Several letters were provided to the Court from individuals thanking Mr. Gomez for the contributions that he has made to their charities and community. Others thanked him for providing police services for various issues. Correspondence was also filed showing that Mr. Gomez was recommended for several service awards. Many unit commanders commended Mr. Gomez for a job well done, acknowledging his commitment to our community.

[11] Other documentation was filed showing Mr. Gomez’s participation in groups such as “Huff Outreach” that provides services to the “forgotten and invisible”. He created this organization in January 2022 for those “individuals of society who find themselves living in perilous conditions on the streets, either permanently or temporarily, without any formal housing structures to be called a home within Toronto or the surrounding areas”. Under the auspices of Huff Outreach, packages were delivered with heartfelt messages to those in need.

[12] Documentation was provided to the Court that showed Mr. Gomez and his daughters restored a Nativity scene that had been deteriorating at their church. They did so by, amongst other things, painting and cleaning it. They also restored a memorial of the founding reverend.

[13] Documentation was also provided describing that in 2019, Mr. Gomez and his daughters created The Chunky Monkeys (referred to above). Amongst other things, they started a fundraiser called, “The Mission of Love”, performing at least 80 times. They performed at Hazel McCallion’s Celebration of Life and other community events. They also provide music therapy for those in need, including those suffering with dementia, brain injury, Down syndrome, and autism. They have an Instagram account with many followers.

[14] Medical documentation was provided by Dr. Ronald Kaplan. Mr. Gomez is a patient who has attended 60 sessions for psychological treatment. The purpose is to deal with his PTSD. Dr. Kaplan advises that Mr. Gomez has made some improvements but requires further care.

[15] Ms. Irene Vrckovnik is an Occupational Therapist who has been working with Mr. Gomez to overcome his PTSD. She describes him as “reliable, dependable, compassionate, caring and warm hearted”. She is encouraging him to become a personal support worker.

[16] Dr. H. Bismel provided a letter dated February 13, 2025. Dr. Bismel advised that Mr. Gomez has suffered PTSD since December 2021. At the time, he was also diagnosed with substance abuse (alcohol) and began attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings regularly. He underwent an intensive six-month treatment program designed for first responders. Following this, Mr. Gomez continued his treatment with regular therapy sessions. He has made notable progress. His depression is now classified as “moderate”. This reflects an improvement from its initial severity. Dr. Bismel describes that Mr. Gomez, “has demonstrated a strong commitment to his recovery, maintaining sobriety and adhering to his treatment plan without interruption since December 2021”.

The Legal Framework: Sentencing

[17] The following is a summary of the legal principles applicable in sentencing Mr. Gomez.

The Offence

[18] Mr. Gomez has been found guilty of committing an offence contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of
(a) An indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) An offence punishable on summary conviction.

General Principles

[19] In determining an appropriate sentence for Mr. Gomez, regard must be had to the sentencing objectives in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[20] The sentencing judge must also have regard to the following: any aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in ss. 718.2(a)(i) to (vii) of the Criminal Code; the principle that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(b)); the principle that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(c)); and the principle that courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)). [1]

Conditional Sentences

[21] Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code authorizes a court to make an order for a conditional sentence. To do so, the court must impose a sentence that is less than two years. Further, the court must be satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and that it is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2.

Discharges

[22] The imposition of a conditional (or absolute) discharge is permissible in the circumstances of this case. Pursuant to s. 730 of the Criminal Code, so long as there is no minimum sentence, a court may discharge an accused provided two conditions are met: the discharge is: (i) in the best interests of the accused; and (ii) not contrary to the public interest.

Collateral Consequences

[23] Collateral consequences of the charge and sentence are to be considered (such as employment consequences). They are relevant because they can increase the impact of an offence or sentence. Collateral consequences include “any consequence arising from the commission of an offence, the conviction for an offence, or the sentence imposed for an offence, that impacts the offender”. Those consequences can include, “physical, emotional, social or financial consequences”. However, collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [2]

The Range

[24] Both counsel have provided the court with authorities in support of their positions on sentence. While I do not intend to refer to them individually, I have reviewed them.

[25] The authorities provided show that some sentences were imposed on police officers following a guilty plea. A conditional discharge was imposed on an accused who committed less serious offences and less often. [3] Some sentences were imposed following consideration of the Gladue principles and evidence of severe addiction. [4] Some sentences resulted from a joint submission. [5] Others involved offences found to be at the modest end of the continuum of criminality (i.e., forging the signature on a required form when firearms were surrendered). [6] Some violated only one policy as opposed to several. [7] Others showed a significant degree of remorse. [8]

[26] Having considered the cases provided by counsel, I am mindful of Chief Justice Lamer’s caution in R. v. M. (C.A.) that, “… the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction”. [9] What the cases show is that, ultimately, sentencing is an individualized process. [10]

Analysis

[27] In sentencing Mr. Gomez, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:

a. The offence committed was a breach of trust which is statutorily aggravating, pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

b. The breach of trust occurred over a series of months, commencing on November 5, 2020 and continuing to January 28, 2021.

c. Mr. Gomez committed several breaches of trust in various forms. Amongst other things, he improperly accessed the police data systems; he disclosed information contained in his memo book; and he disclosed personal information of members of the public obtained in the course of his duties. He violated multiple police policies and procedures, including his oath of secrecy; the oath of office; standards of conduct (many times); and his MTO security agreement, among other things.

d. This is not a technical breach. On several occasions, Mr. Gomez disseminated confidential information about members of our community. Further, he counseled Mr. Issa to lie to police.

e. The offences occurred when Mr. Gomez was on duty.

f. Mr. Gomez was aware that Mr. Issa had a criminal record. He willingly provided information to Mr. Issa notwithstanding that fact.

[28] I find the following to be the mitigating factors:

a. Mr. Gomez took full responsibility for his actions by his plea. The plea provided certainty of result. It is a sign of his remorse.

b. Although the guilty plea occurred at the time of trial, it came at a time when the court’s resources are under stress. The plea of guilt saved a significant amount of trial time and allowed another matter to proceed.

c. Mr. Gomez does not have a prior criminal record. He is a first offender.

d. But for these incidents, Mr. Gomez has been regularly employed and has a pro-social background.

e. Mr. Gomez has a significant responsibility in raising his three girls which he has done exceptionally well. While he may have the support of his family in doing so, the mother of the girls has only infrequent visits with them and in a supervised setting.

f. Mr. Gomez has made a significant contribution to our community through his tireless efforts and with the assistance of his daughters and their musical group, The Chunky Monkeys. He is a good role model for others, and particularly his children.

g. There are significant collateral consequences regarding Mr. Gomez’s career. Mr. Gomez will not work as a police officer again. He wishes to be a Personal Support Worker. The court is advised that he cannot do so with a criminal record.

h. Mr. Gomez suffers from PTSD arising from his work as a police officer. He is working diligently at his rehabilitation.

i. Mr. Gomez has the support of his community.

The Appropriate Sentence

[29] I have considered whether a conditional discharge is the appropriate disposition in all of the circumstances. While there is no question that a discharge is in Mr. Gomez’s best interests, I find that it would be contrary to the public interest. It cannot adequately provide for general deterrence and denunciation in the circumstances of this case.

Best Interests of Mr. Gomez

[30] In coming to my conclusion that a conditional discharge is not appropriate, I have considered the totality of the circumstances, including the good character of Mr. Gomez both personally and professionally. He has no previous convictions. I do not find that it is necessary to enter a conviction to deter him from committing further offences or for purposes of his rehabilitation.

[31] Further, Mr. Gomez has been stigmatized. He has appeared in a public courtroom and he has pleaded guilty to the offence. He otherwise leads a pro-social life with family who depend upon him. He wishes to become an accredited Personal Support Worker. As mentioned previously, the court is advised that a criminal conviction will prevent him from doing so.

[32] I do find that the imposition of a conditional discharge would be in Mr. Gomez’s best interests. However, I do not find that it would be in the public’s best interest.

Not Contrary to the Public Interest

[33] The principles of denunciation and deterrence are of paramount consideration in the sentencing of police officers. [11] A discharge is often inappropriate where denunciation and deterrence are of primary importance. Conditional discharges should be used sparingly. [12]

[34] Police officers, who discharge public duties, occupy a special position of trust in our communities. [13] Police officers are sworn to uphold the law and as such, “powers conferred on police require that they be held to a high standard of accountability”. [14] Public trust in the police is of paramount concern. [15] In such a position, a police officer is well aware of the consequences of a crime involving a breach of trust. [16]

[35] Further, in cases where a police officer is being sentenced, the sentence imposed must be more than that of an ordinary person who commits a similar offence. The rationale of this principle was explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Schertzer, at para. 133:

The commission of offences by police officers has been considered on numerous occasions by the Courts, and the unanimous finding has been that their sentence should be more severe than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime, because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence and their knowledge of the consequences of its perpetration.

[36] I accept that there is no evidence before the court to suggest that Mr. Gomez profited financially or otherwise from the information provided to Mr. Issa. Further, there is nothing before the court to suggest what, if anything, Mr. Issa did with the information provided. What is known to the court is that Mr. Gomez was advised that Mr. Issa had a criminal record. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Gomez provided confidential information to him over several months and on several occasions. In doing so, he committed a breach of trust, several times, violating numerous statutes and policies. Mr. Gomez did not engage in this conduct because he was acting in the interests of public safety or protection. His moral blameworthiness is high.

[37] The reality is that those who find themselves before a criminal court convicted of a breach of trust crime, like Mr. Gomez, are usually persons of good character. It is that character that allows them to occupy a position of trust. [17] Further, I recognize that Mr. Gomez has been stigmatized by the process. However, “while shame and disgrace may be amplified in the instance of a public official, these consequences are not to be over-emphasized in determining a fit punishment”. [18]

[38] I have also taken into consideration, the consequences of Mr. Gomez’s act both now, and for the future. He will never be employed as a police officer again — a position he once took pride in holding. However, because this employment consequence was inevitable given the nature of the offence, “its role as a mitigating factor is greatly diminished”. [19] A criminal record will likely prevent him from becoming an accredited Personal Support Worker. Notwithstanding these facts, the effect of the charge and sentence on Mr. Gomez’s career is a significant collateral consequence that must be considered in determining a fit sentence.

[39] In my view, a conditional discharge would fail to reflect society’s condemnation of the conduct of Mr. Gomez. Further, it would not properly address the need to denounce his conduct. In my view, such a sentence would be demonstrably unfit.

[40] As such, I find that a conditional sentence of six months is the appropriate sentence. The terms of the conditional order will include the following (in addition to the statutory terms), as set out in Appendix “A” which is attached hereto.

[41] Having considered the age, character, nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, I decline to impose a probation order. [20]

Conclusion

[42] Mr. Gomez has been found guilty of breach of trust when he was a member of the TPS. He is sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community. The terms of this sentence are set out in Appendix “A” to these reasons.

Appendix “A”

The following are the terms of Mr. Gomez’s conditional sentence order of six months. The first three months will include the following terms (in addition to the statutory terms):

Mr. Gomez shall always remain in his home with the following exceptions:
- To take his daughters to and from school;
- For medical emergencies for himself and members of his family;
- To attend his counselling sessions;
- One day a week for four hours to obtain the necessaries of life; and
- With the written permission of his conditional sentence supervisor.

The remaining three months will include the following term (in addition to the statutory terms): to maintain a curfew of 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., but for the exceptions outlined above.

During the entirety of the conditional sentence order, Mr. Gomez shall have no contact, either direct or indirect, with Mr. Joseph Issa.