Provincial Court

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: R. v. T.D.R., 2015 NSPC 26

Date: 2015-04-22

  Docket:   1467999-1468000

Registry: Pictou

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

v.

T.D.R.

SENTENCING DECISION

By the Court:

[1]             In relation to the adult information, again, I share … so this is now a separate sentencing proceed, I repeat what I said in the now-just-concluded YCJA proceeding.  Mr. R. is before the court for property-related charges going back a full decade.  They were part of a string of offences that started out when Mr. R. was a young person.  Mr. R. is now serving a federal sentence for recent charges committed in another province; I am informed that the  warrant expiry date is either February or June of 2018.  Although Mr. R. is being dealt with as an adult, if this decision needs to get written up because of Mr. R.’s status as a federal inmate, I will anonymize any identifying information, given that I just dealt with Mr. R. on YCJA matters.

[2]             The pre-sentence report refers to substantial progress that Mr. R. has made while incarcerated.  I refer to Jerry Hines, parole officer, contacted for the purpose of the report.  Mr. Hines indicates he last supervised Mr. R. between December, 2013 and September, 2014.  He indicates that the subject does well with structure and was employed while in the community.  He notes that Mr. R. struggles with alcohol addiction and his association with a negative peer group, which unfortunately, includes his brother L.  Mr. Hines notes that through conversation with Mr. R., he has realized that he is struggling with a past issue that he has yet to deal with and, as long as he goes untreated for some, his addiction issues may continue.   He further notes Mr. R. has acknowledged this, but admits he has not found someone he trusts enough to delve into that issue and deal with it, and he has not accessed that help that he needs.  Mr. Hines indicates he is prepared to work with the offender again to assist him in dealing with these issues, if he becomes involved with parole again.  Mr. Hines states that, on a positive note, the subject has a trade and is employable.  His addiction issues and negative peer group are the most noticeable risk factors.  Charlene Buote, Executive Director at Lavers House  was contacted for this report at Mr. R.’s request.  Ms. Buote confirms that the subject spent approximately six months at Lavers House and overall, his behaviour was respectful and compliant.  She indicates that he was in residence on day-parole and did well.  She reported that he then returned to the House on a parole violation for six weeks to stabilize his life before being released back into the community.  She notes that while in federal custody, he completed core programming as well as maintenance programming.  Ms. Buote stated Mr. R. also completed programming in the community which targeted developing relapse-prevention plans and anger- management skills.  Ms. Buote indicates that the subject has alcohol issues and notes this appears to run in  his family.  She indicates she would have no issues with him returning to Lavers House, if he were admitted to parole again, as he was compliant and maintained employment while he was in residence.

[3]             I’ve seen reference to the incident reports of the correctional facility, and I agree with Mr. Robertson’s characterization of those.  While any incident within an institution is obviously something best avoided, these appear to be at the very low end.  The contraband appears to have been a water bag in Mr. R.’s cell.

[4]             In my view, the appropriate outcome in relation to each of the four charges before the court in information #468716 is a three (3) month sentence to be served concurrently to each other and concurrently to any time served.

[5]             Given Mr. R.’s present limited circumstances, given that these offences occurred prior to the coming-into-force date of the amendments to Section 737 of the Criminal Code, I decline to impose any victim-surcharge amount, as I believe that victim-surcharge amounts would work an undue hardship on Mr. R..

[6]             As the time imposed today is to be served concurrently, Mr. R.’s warrant expiry date shouldn’t get altered.

[7]             I mean, when I read this report, it’s clear that you’ve made great progress.  Sometimes progress advances in crooked lines and there can be setbacks, but the overall direction is looking positive.

[8]             What happened here with these charges is just inexplicable and I accept everything that you said through your lawyer that you tried to get them dealt with, and that, for whatever reason, the paperwork hadn’t been done properly to begin with.  Your efforts to get your charges dealt with were frustrated.  You should not be penalized for that.

[9]              I’ll have you go back with the sheriffs, Mr. R., and they’ll ensure that you’re returned to custody appropriately.

Atwood,  JPC