Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-0141-00
Date: 2025-06-27
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Telique Ricketts

Appearances:
H. Bracken, for the Crown
T. Kent, for the Accused

Heard: May 22, 2025, Thunder Bay, Ontario
Justice: S. J. Wojciechowski

Overview

[1] Telique Ricketts proceeded to trial facing a charge of second degree murder causing the death of Adrian Richardson. The trial commenced with a jury, but after receiving three days of evidence from several witnesses, Telique Ricketts agreed to enter a guilty plea to manslaughter with a gun.

[2] After filing an Agreed Statement of Facts, and upon hearing the victim impact statements from family members of Adrian Richardson, sentencing submissions were presented on May 22, 2025.

[3] In considering what an appropriate sentence should be, I want to start off by saying that no matter what sentence I impose upon Telique Ricketts, nothing can fill the tremendous void left in the lives of the family of Adrian Richardson caused by his death. After listening to the victim impact statements, it is clear that Adrian Richardson was a much loved and cherished member of his family, a beacon of light which gave so much joy to those in his life.

[4] I will refer to the victim impact statements later in my reasons, but the family of Adrian Richardson should know that I have taken into account all of your comments which were presented and filed when considering the appropriate sentence to impose upon Telique Ricketts.

The Facts

A. Circumstances of the Offence

[5] An Agreed Statement of Facts was entered as evidence and provided a description of the events which unfolded and led to the death of Adrian Richardson.

[6] On the evening of May 2, 2022, Telique Ricketts and three other individuals – Jacob Green, Aiden Collander, and Henok Banjaw – got together at the apartment and residence of Telique Ricketts located at 911 Victoria Avenue East in Thunder Bay. While there, Telique Ricketts and Aiden Collander came up with a plan to attend the Hodder Avenue residence of Adrian Richardson for the purpose of robbing him in order to come up with some money fast. The four individuals travelled in a black SUV operated by Henok Banjaw, and together made their way to Adrian Richardson’s residence. While travelling, Telique Ricketts shared with Aiden Collander and Jacob Green that he had a handgun, and showed them the gun as they were in the black SUV.

[7] After arriving at their destination, Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander and Jacob Green exited the vehicle and broke into the Hodder Avenue residence.

[8] In the process of searching the residence for drugs and money, Adrian Richardson suddenly came out of hiding, and running out of a bedroom said, “the police are on the way”.

[9] Telique Ricketts and Jacob Green then exited the bedroom they were in, and a single gunshot was fired by Telique Ricketts at Adrian Richardson. Up to this point in time, the plan was only to commit a robbery, and Telique Ricketts was not planning on shooting Adrian Richardson. Upon encountering Adrian Richardson, Telique Ricketts did not take aim with an intent to kill, and instead the shooting was reflexive and instant.

[10] After Adrian Richardson was shot, the three men immediately left the Hodder Avenue apartment and were picked up by Henok Banjaw who was waiting for them in the black SUV. They then drove together and parked the vehicle at a Superstore, and then a Nissan dealership, after which they made their way, in pairs, to a bar called Centerfolds. There, they sat and discussed what had happened, without knowing the extent of the injury sustained by Adrian Richardson. Eventually they decided to return to 911 Victoria Avenue East. Telique Ricketts, Jacob Green and Aiden Collander hailed a cab and made their way first to Shoppers Drug Mart so that Telique Ricketts could purchase some snacks. After finishing his shopping, Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander and Jacob Green were picked up by Henok Banjaw who was now driving a new vehicle, a white Honda Civic, and they drove back to the Victoria Avenue residence.

[11] Adrian Richardson suffered a single gunshot wound to his face, and his cause of death was determined to be the gunshot injury which resulted from Telique Ricketts’ actions.

B. Circumstances of the Offender

[12] At the time of the offence, Telique Ricketts was 22 years old.

[13] In May 2022, Telique Ricketts’ criminal record included a number of convictions for offences committed in Brampton, Ontario, including robbery, failure to comply with recognizance, and possession of a weapon. On the weapon’s charge, he received a conditional discharge with 12 months’ probation, and for the robbery he received a six month conditional sentence and a section 109 weapons prohibition.

C. Impact on the Victim and the Community

[14] Twenty-five written victim impact statements were filed at the sentencing hearing, all of which provided insight into the man who was Adrian Richardson and who was fatally shot by Telique Ricketts.

[15] While a handful were read into the record during the hearing, my review of the entirety of the victim impact statements left me with the impression that Adrian Richardson was a significant part of his family’s identity which has been forever scarred by the senseless and violent actions of Telique Ricketts on May 2, 2022.

[16] Adrian Richardson had a mother and a father, along with two siblings, fifteen cousins as well as a number of aunts and uncles, all of whom loved him very much and were very much loved by Adrian Richardson.

[17] Tianna, Adrian Richardson’s younger sister, wrote:

I know Adrian’s spirit is not gone…. He still matters. He will always matter; the love we had for him will continue to live long after this courtroom is silent.

[18] Adrian’s Aunt Deyo shared the following:

His heart was pure…. He had that rare, genuine warmth. Adrian’s smile was unlike any other. It wasn’t just a smile; it was an invitation – a warm welcome that made everyone around him feel seen and valued. His laugh was contagious, and his joy was so infectious that it made others laugh, even without knowing what he was laughing at.

[19] Shay Linton wanted to let us know that:

Adrian had a heart of gold and lit up any room he entered with his warm bright smile. Following Adrian’s smile came the warmest hug and he always made sure to ask how you were doing.

[20] And Adrian Richardson’s Aunty Anike provided insight as to the impact his death has had upon her family:

Adrian was so much more than this sad circumstance. He was loving, kind-hearted, bright, and full of life. He had dreams and aspirations like all of us that he is now unable to fulfill. He brought joy and laughter to everyone fortunate enough to know him. His laughter is unforgettable, his hugs were embracing and his love was undeniable.

The loss of Adrian has created a void in all of our hearts that can never be filled. There is no measure for the devastation our family has and will forever endure. The joy at every holiday has been stripped and will never be the same. We can no longer gather and celebrate without the empty feeling of his absence…. We will never see what successes life would have brought him or what legacies he would have created.

[21] Finally, the words of a devastated mother, Sachi Persaud, are worth repeating:

I stand here soaked in despair and hazed in grief…. [Y]ou may … think that I have survived Adrian’s death, [but] what escapes you, is the realization that I have had to relearn how to survive each day again, because each day, Adrian is not with me.

I taught him how to talk, walk, and drink out of a regular glass. I taught him how to read, patiently sounding out letters until the words came alive for him. I held the back of his bike as he pedaled nervously down the sidewalk until he could balance on his own and ride confidently. I watched him grow stronger, teaching him how to swim, one careful stroke at a time, and I was the one who stood on the sidelines at every soccer practice, cheering him on as he pursued his childhood passion. I saw the pride in his eyes when he made the team, and I was there to pick him up when he fell. I taught him how to cook, do his laundry, open a bank account, save money, and was always there for him in his educational journey.

[22] And speaking directly to Telique Ricketts about the impact his actions have had upon her family:

You … took his dreams, his future, and everything he was meant to become. You left a wound and are part of the reason that my heart will never heal. You destroyed a young man who was finding his way, who loved deeply, and who was starting to build a life he was proud of.

… I will never see him get married, have children, or achieve the goals he had worked so hard for. My life now is haunted by the things he will never get to do or experience with me, and the others. The immense pain of what has been lost echoes daily, and I carry this sorrow with me every day, and it affects every part of my life…. There is no moving on from losing a child. It is unbearable.

[23] I thank all of those individuals who took the time to prepare and file a victim impact statement for my review. I commend all of those who stood before me and read out various statements, including Sachi Persaud, the mother of Adrian Richardson, and acknowledge the courage it took for all of you to express your feelings before the court.

Legal Parameters

[24] The offence of manslaughter with a gun is found in section 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and provides for a penalty ranging between four years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life.

Position of the Crown

[25] The Crown submits that the range for the offence to which Telique Ricketts has pled invites a sentence within the range of 10 to 12 years, and the Crown’s submission is that 12 years is appropriate in the circumstances.

[26] In addition, the Crown submits that a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to section 109 of the Code should be included as an ancillary order to the sentence.

[27] In support of its position, the Crown submits that this offence involved a plan to rob someone in the midst of a home invasion. As is recognized in the case of R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 3850, at para. 45, a person’s home is a “citadel of personal privacy”, providing “personal refuge from the outside world”.

[28] It is submitted that while the four individuals involved were originally charged with first degree murder, the investigation revealed that the plan was to rob Adrian Richardson, and not to kill him. They had some information that perhaps Adrian Richardson possessed drugs and money, and the plan driven by greed and convenience was rooted in a desire to get some cash as quick as possible. The actions of Telique Ricketts and the other three were senseless and foolish, driven by the desire to achieve some personal benefit, which ended up at the expense of Adrian Richardson’s life.

[29] Aggravating factors which the Crown submits this court should consider include the fact that after shooting Adrian Richardson, he was left by himself on the floor without any attempt to provide help, or without calling EMS to assist him with his injury. Telique Ricketts, Aiden Collander and Jacob Green simply fled the scene, after which they attempted to cover their tracks by dumping the getaway car and securing another vehicle. In addition, within minutes of the shooting, Telique Ricketts is seen buying snacks and drinks, after which he heads home, demonstrating callousness and indifference to what had just occurred.

[30] Another aggravating factor submitted by the Crown is Telique Ricketts’ criminal record which indicates that as a youth, he committed a robbery with some kind of weapon. The Crown submits that while this is not the worst criminal record, it contributes to Telique Ricketts’ background story. In addition, the fact that Telique Ricketts was still on probation when these convictions were entered suggests that the potential for rehabilitation must be considered.

[31] In terms of mitigating factors, the Crown acknowledges Telique Ricketts’ youth in that today he is only 25 years old. Most significant, however, is the fact that he decided to enter a plea mid-way through a trial which the Crown agrees was not going well for the prosecution. The Crown concedes that getting to a second degree murder verdict would have been challenging. With that backdrop, Telique Ricketts decided to accept what he did, and he pled guilty to the lesser included charge of manslaughter with a firearm. This decision, coupled with the Agreed Statement of Facts, provides a clear account of what happened to Adrian Richardson, something which would not have resulted had the trial continued to a jury verdict.

[32] I say this because at the end of a jury trial, a verdict is provided, and Telique Ricketts could have been pronounced guilty of second degree murder, or manslaughter, or possibly even not guilty. While each of those verdicts would be based upon factual findings determined by the jury during their deliberations, none of those findings would be introduced in open court nor discussed in any way following the delivery of the jury’s verdict. As such, Adrian Richardson’s family and the public would not know exactly what happened to Adrian Richardson. Telique Ricketts’ decision to plead guilty and provide those details is a mitigating factor to be considered in his sentencing.

[33] Since Telique Ricketts has served 1,084 days in custody as of the date of the sentencing submissions, the Crown supported enhanced credits to his sentence of 1,626 days, which works out to 4.45 years. As such, the Crown submits that an additional effective sentence of 7.5 years, to get to a total of 12 years, is appropriate.

Position of the Defence

[34] Ms. Kent, counsel for Telique Ricketts, agreed with the position put forth by the Crown that the appropriate range of the sentence is between 10 and 12 years.

[35] In light of the fact that Telique Ricketts entered a guilty plea, a great deal of resources and the jury’s time were saved since a three week trial did not have to proceed and only three days were necessary. In addition, the facts of what happened as admitted by Telique Ricketts would not have come out had the trial proceeded to verdict, this being particularly relevant in light of the uncertainties raised through the evidence of Jacob Green. Since Telique Ricketts has taken responsibility and has not left Adrian Richardson’s family in the dark, the Defence suggests that within the range of 10 to 12 years, ten years is the appropriate sentence.

[36] Ms. Kent agreed that aggravating factors in play in this matter include the fact that Adrian Richardson was killed, which is one of the most serious offences set out within the Code. Also, the actions of Telique Ricketts began with a robbery, which is another aggravating factor.

[37] Mitigating factors are submitted to be the young age of Telique Ricketts, his short criminal record, and the guilty verdict which was entered. In addition, the Defence submitted that Telique Ricketts’ family is supportive, and once Telique Ricketts is released from custody after serving his sentence, he will be returning to a family environment which will ensure that something like what happened to Adrian Richardson never happens again.

[38] In exploring the principles of sentencing, Ms. Kent submitted that a ten year sentence would ensure that Telique Ricketts is not released for a while, providing sufficient denunciation. In terms of deterrence, a sentence of ten years would generally inform society that these acts of violence are not acceptable, and would specifically impact Telique Ricketts since he will be spending the majority of his twenties behind bars and separated from society. With respect to rehabilitation, it was pointed out that in federal institutions there are more opportunities for school and to learn a trade, and given his age and family support, the proposed sentence of ten years would address this consideration.

[39] Pursuant to section 718.2(b) of the Code, the Defence also submitted that the court should take into consideration various Morris factors in sentencing, which account for the overrepresentation of Black offenders in Canadian jails and the impact of marginalization of Black cultures resulting in educational and economic disadvantages.

[40] Telique Ricketts is a Black, male, Canadian citizen. His mother was born in Canada and his father was from Jamaica. Telique Ricketts did not have a lot of contact with his father in his youth because his father was deported back to Jamaica when he was young. Unfortunately, shortly after reaching out to his father when Telique Ricketts was in his early twenties, his father was killed while living in Jamaica. His mother was also 14 or 15 years old when he was born, providing additional disadvantage to his situation. But this left the two of them very close and they effectively grew up together.

[41] During his younger years, Telique Ricketts did well in school and was involved in sports, including football, all with his mother’s support. While he was being scouted by teams from the United States during his grade 12 year, he injured his knee which took him out of the season and out of sight of any serious scouting opportunities. This led to a period of depression and a school environment which was no longer very interesting to him, especially because he was not being scouted anymore. His first run in with the law occurred when his football career stopped, and the resulting criminal record ensured that he would never be able to go to a school in the US on a football scholarship.

Case Law

[42] The Crown referred me to a number of cases.

[43] The case of R. v. Gough, [1995] O.J. No. 4325 (C.J.), presented a situation where the accused used a gun to rob a store, and as a result of the gun going off accidentally, a store clerk was killed. The sentencing judge started off with the legal proposition that in cases where an armed robbery results in an innocent victim being killed, a very stiff sentence is demanded, which lies in the range of 15 years to life imprisonment.

[44] Mitigating factors in that case included the accused’s young age of 21, and aggravating factors included the reckless disregard shown towards the life of another human being, as well as the fact that he was subject to a weapons prohibition on account of offences committed as a young offender. Fifteen years six months’ imprisonment was the sentence delivered for the manslaughter, and another ten years six months for robbery to run concurrently.

[45] On appeal, the fifteen years six months was reduced to twelve years to account for the young age and pre-trial custody.

[46] R. v. Chretien, involved a home invasion where the accused sought to rob the deceased. After two men entered the premises, they encountered the deceased who was sleeping at the time. The ensuing scuffle resulted in a blunt force trauma death involving kicks to the head by one accused as well as blows with a flashlight by another. Once the deceased was injured, the two men left the premises knowing that they had gravely injured him.

[47] Aggravating factors in that case included the lengthy criminal record of the accused, as well as the facts that the accused attended at the residence with the intention of harming the deceased to “get him back”, that the accused kicked the deceased in the face, that the manslaughter took place as part of a home invasion, and that after gravely injuring the deceased, the two men left him without obtaining any medical help.

[48] Mitigating factors in that case included the facts that there was no premeditated decision to kill the deceased, that no weapon was brought to the scene, that the accused was under the influence of alcohol and drugs at the time, and that the kicking to the face was not the force which resulted in the deceased’s death.

[49] In that case, the accused who was charged with manslaughter was sentenced to 12 years less credits for pre-sentence custody.

[50] In R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 3850 (“Singh”), a home invasion and robbery went wrong when the occupant was stabbed and accidentally killed.

[51] In describing the nature of a home invasion, it was noted that the high end for an aggravated home invasion without a killing is a sentence of 11 to 13 years. The court also pointed out that home invasions are troubling in that they represent a violation of the sanctity of a home and the sense of security people feel in their place of residence.

[52] A number of cases are reviewed at paras. 98 to 102, establishing a general range for aggravated manslaughter of 8 to 12 years (R. v. Clarke), with home invasion manslaughter involving planned or gratuitous or revenge motivated violence warranting 12 to 15 years (R. v. Atherley, 2009 ONCA 195; R. v. Cleyndert; R. v. Jones-Solomon, 2015 ONCA 654), and 10 to 12 years in other cases, one of which included no plan to inflict deadly force (R. v. Hong, 2016 ONSC 2654; R. v. Bukhari, [2007] O.J. No. 5807 (C.J.); R. v. Chretien).

[53] The facts in Singh suggested that the accused were driven by greed and naked opportunity which focused on an easy score. The accused who actually did the stabbing was remorseful, young, and had no prior criminal record. He also had good support from his family and friends, and the prospects of rehabilitation were good. A sentence of 13 years was deemed appropriate.

[54] Finally, the case of R. v. Reid, 2018 ONSC 7079, was relied upon by the Crown, where a planned robbery was undertaken while the accused was armed with a firearm. While the accused did not shoot the deceased, his partner did while the deceased was unarmed and did not provoke the violence inflicted upon him, and the accused did nothing to assist the deceased and instead took steps to dispose of evidence linked to the crime. The court noted that Mr. Reid was remorseful and had a very supportive family, but also recognized that the impact of his involvement caused the deceased’s family to be absolutely devastated. After considering that the main objective in dealing with violence of this nature are the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting the accused was not a youthful young offender but instead a dangerous criminal who had not been deterred by previous criminal sentences, Mr. Reid was sentenced to 15 years.

[55] The jurisprudence referenced by the Defence provided a number of similar factual scenarios to be considered in sentencing.

[56] In R. v. Norman, [2005] O.J. No. 1073 (S.C.), the accused stabbed and beat his drug dealer to death in the dealer’s residence. The killing was excessive and gratuitous, and Mr. Norman fled the scene without offering any help. With reference to Clarke, the court recognized the appropriate range for this type of case to be 8 to 12 years. While the accused was noted to be remorseful and had a supportive family waiting for him after his custodial sentence was served, the court determined a fit sentence to be 11 to 12 years, which was reduced to eight years after pre-sentence custody credits were applied.

[57] R. v. Khill, 2023 ONSC 3374 (“Khill”), is a case which resulted in an eight year sentence being imposed, despite the Crown seeking ten years. This was not a home invasion manslaughter case, but rather a case near to self defence where the victim was shot twice after found rifling through the accused’s vehicle at night. Citing para. 247 of R. v. Stone, the court noted that “[t]he key to determining an appropriate sentence in a manslaughter case is assessing the level of moral blameworthiness of the offender.” The Clarke range of 8 to 12 years is also referenced, recognizing that no matter what sentence is imposed, the deceased cannot be brought back nor can the grief of the family and community be alleviated. Ultimately, the sentence imposed by the court in Khill relied upon the absence of a criminal record, the significant degree of remorse exhibited by the accused, the supportive family available to the accused and the real prospect of rehabilitation.

[58] Finally, in R. v. Bukhari, [2007] O.J. No. 5807 (C.J.), noting an appropriate range being 8 to 10 years, a ten year sentence was imposed after a victim was shot and killed in the midst of a home invasion and robbery. The Defence submits, however, that the aggravating factors in that case are not applicable to Telique Ricketts, including the facts that the accused planned the home invasion while the victim was known to be home, that at one point the accused stood over the victim with a gun pointed at him, and ultimately the deceased was shot twice in the chest and once in the arm while trying to escape.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[59] I agree with the positions put forth by the Crown and the Defence with respect to the mitigating and aggravating factors in play in this case. Both parties more or less agree on these factors, and vary only slightly with respect to the impact these should have upon my sentencing decision.

[60] The factors which are aggravating and call for a harsher sentence include the following:

• Telique Ricketts planned to break into Adrian Richardson’s residence with the intention of committing a robbery to make some fast cash;
• After shooting Adrian Richardson, Telique Ricketts left him bleeding on the floor, and while he did not pull the trigger with the intent to kill, Telique Ricketts made no attempt to assist Adrian Richardson and did not seek help from EMS to tend to his wound;
• The efforts of Telique Ricketts following the break in, attempted robbery and shooting of Adrian Richardson were designed to cover his tracks by switching out the Ford Edge used to travel to Adrian Richardson’s residence with a Honda Civic;
• After leaving Adrian Richardson’s residence, knowing that he had been shot, Telique Ricketts attends at a Shoppers Drug Mart to pick up snacks and drinks, demonstrating callousness and indifference as to what had just happened;
• Telique Ricketts’ criminal record includes convictions for robbery with a weapon committed as a youth; and
• The death of Adrian Richardson was a senseless act driven by greed and foolishness.

[61] The mitigating factors include the following:

• The original plan was to break into Adrian Richardson’s residence in order to commit a robbery, not to shoot and kill Adrian Richardson;
• Telique Ricketts is 25 years old, a relatively young age which suggests the possibility that sentencing will have a rehabilitative impact upon him;
• Telique Ricketts pled guilty in the middle of his trial which the Crown concedes was not going well for the Crown following the testimony from two witnesses. In the face of serious problems with the Crown’s case, he took responsibility for what he did;
• The guilty plea of Telique Ricketts and his agreement on the facts describing what happened on May 2, 2022, confirms the versions of events provided by Aiden Collander and Jacob Green, which is significant because:
  • While the police conducted a thorough investigation into the death of Adrian Richardson, only Telique Ricketts knew what he did and he was prepared to confirm what happened in Adrian Richardson’s residence;
  • If the jury trial continued and went to verdict, no reasons would ever be provided for whatever result the jury might have delivered, leaving the family of Adrian Richardson in the dark as to the factual basis of the jury’s decision;
  • Without the guilty plea from Telique Ricketts, no one would have known who pulled the trigger and caused Adrian Richardson’s death, and now the family has the benefit of knowing exactly what happened to their loved one.

[62] At the end of the sentencing hearing, I asked Telique Ricketts if he wished to say anything, and he stood to address the court, his family, and the family of Adrian Richardson.

[63] In his remarks, he recognized that there was nothing he could do to bring Adrian Richardson back. He acknowledged that by taking the life of Adrian Richardson, he made the worst mistake of his life. He told the court that he was truly remorseful for his actions, and this was why he was pleading guilty to manslaughter.

[64] Telique Ricketts also told the family of Adrian Richardson that he was truthfully sorry that they had to experience their grief because of his terrible actions that night. He told the court that he will regret his actions for the rest of his life.

[65] Finally, he apologized to his family, especially his mother, telling her that he failed her despite all the sacrifices she made for him and vowed to never disappoint her again.

Principles of Sentencing

[66] Section 718 of the Code sets out the following principles and objectives of sentencing:

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.

[67] Denouncing unlawful conduct, also known as the principle of denunciation, refers to public condemnation of the criminal behavior.

[68] The principle of deterrence reflects a message to be sent to the offender (specific deterrence), or to the community (general deterrence), that breaking the law by committing a crime of this nature will attract punishment and consequences. The hope is to deter the offender and others from further breaches of the law.

[69] Section 718.1 requires that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In other words, the more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility, the harsher the sentence will be: see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64.

[70] Further sentencing principles that must guide the court are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code.

[71] Section 718.2(a) requires that a sentence be increased to account for any aggravating factors or reduced to account for any mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances generally tend to make the offence more troubling while mitigating circumstances moderate the severity of the offence.

[72] Sections 718.2(d) requires restraint in sentencing, acknowledging that sentences are not only intended to be punitive, but also remedial. Imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort, to be used only where no other sanction or combination of sanctions are appropriate to the offence and the offender.

Reasons

[73] Referencing para. 5 of R. v. Anderson, 2020 NSPC 10:

Sentencing is one of the most difficult, yet crucial functions of a trial judge. On the one hand, sentencing is a very individualized and contextualized process; on the other, it also requires the balancing of societal interests and the application of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M. (C.A.), at paras. 91 and 92, stated that the determination of a just and appropriate sentence requires the trial judge to do a careful balancing of the societal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence while at the same time taking into account the victim or victims and the needs of and current conditions in the community.

[74] I accept the submissions of the Crown and the Defence that the appropriate range for sentencing purposes is 10 to 12 years. I also acknowledge that the Crown is seeking the upper limit of this range with a position that 12 years is appropriate, while the Defence suggests that 10 years would properly account for the circumstances of this case.

[75] The factors which weigh in favour of a sentence in the range of 12 years include the plan to commit a robbery with a gun, the fact that the events which ended the life of Adrian Richardson were committed in his own home where he was entitled to be safe from any violent acts, the decision not to stick around and provide assistance to Adrian Richardson notwithstanding that fatally injuring him was not part of the plan, and the attempts made afterward to cover the tracks of those involved.

[76] On the other hand, there are some factors in this case which support a lesser sentence, including the young age of Telique Ricketts and his potential for rehabilitation, the various Morris factors described by counsel for the Defence, the supportive family which will be around once Telique Ricketts is released, the expression of remorse to Adrian Richardson’s family and his own family, and the decision of Telique Ricketts to plead guilty mid-way through his jury trial taking responsibility for his actions and confirming his specific role in the death of Adrian Richardson.

[77] Ultimately, while I give credit to Telique Ricketts for his plea which provides the family of Adrian Richardson certainty as to what happened that night, the fact that this was a planned home invasion with a gun supports a sentence closer to the higher end of the range of 10 to 12 years.

[78] However, I am impressed by the decision of Telique Ricketts for taking responsibility for his actions, and the potential for rehabilitation given his age and the support from his family.

[79] Having considered all of the factors set out above, including the submissions of the Defence with respect to Morris principles, along with the statutorily recognized principles of sentencing, including the rehabilitative potential for Telique Ricketts, without factoring in any credits for pre-trial custody, it is my decision that a fit sentence in all the circumstances is one of 11 years in the penitentiary.

[80] In that Telique Ricketts has served 1,119 days in custody as of the date of this decision, I am prepared to apply enhanced credits to his sentence of 1,680 days. Accordingly, Telique Ricketts will receive a credit of 4 years and 219 days.

Ancillary Orders

[81] Telique Ricketts has already provided a DNA sample in the past, so initially I determined a DNA order in this regard is not necessary. However, upon receiving further submissions from the Crown, with manslaughter being a primary designated offence, a DNA order is compulsory and as such it shall be ordered.

[82] The Crown has spoken with the family of Adrian Richardson and confirmed there is no concern that a non-communication order should be made.

[83] A section 109 order will issue prohibiting Telique Ricketts from possessing weapons for the remainder of his life.

Final Decision

[84] Telique Ricketts, your sentence will therefore be one of 6 years and 146 days in the penitentiary taking into account enhanced credits for pre-sentence custody. In addition, Mr. Ricketts, you shall be subject to a lifetime prohibition with respect to the possession of any firearm, weapon or any other item referenced in section 109 of the Criminal Code. Finally, Mr. Ricketts, you shall provide a sample of your DNA pursuant to the DNA Identification Act.

“original signed by”

S. J. Wojciechowski

Released: June 27, 2025