of 3
R. v. Price, 2015 ONCJ 135 (CanLII)
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Price, 2015 ONCJ 135
DATE: 2015·03·11
COURT FILE No.: Lindsay 14-1000
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
LEONARD PRICE
Before Justice S. W. Konyer
Heard on March 5 and 11, 2015
Reasons for Judgment released on March 11, 2015
Ms. J. Broderick ...................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Mr. K. Murray ............................................................ counsel for the defendant Leonard Price
KONYER J.:
[1] Leonard Price has pled guilty to a number of charges involving the theft of Brett Lee’s identity and the use of this identity to fraudulently obtain and use credit cards FKxxx JWxxx in Mr. Lee’s name spanning a time period between June and July, 2014. Mr. Price, who would have been 31 years of age at the time, had no criminal record, but had just been released on a recognizance on outstanding charges of a similar nature that he was facing in Toronto. His father acted as his surety, and the bail conditions required Mr. Price to live with his father at his address of 33 River Road in Lindsay. Mr. Price’s father rented a room in that home from the owners, who were his sister Dorothy Walz and her partner Brett Lee. Mr. Price moved in immediately following his release on May 22, 2014 on the Toronto charges.
[2] By July 5, 2014, Brett Lee had contacted police to report the suspected theft of his personal identification. Investigation revealed that Mr. Price used his position as a guest within the home of Mr. Lee and Ms. Walz to obtain a great deal of personal and financial information about Mr. Lee, including information from Mr. Lee’s driver’s licence, birth certificate, pay stubs, bank account statements, credit application forms and other personal and financial records which Mr. Lee kept in his home. Mr. Price used this information to assume the identity of Mr. Lee in order to apply for a number of credit cards, including a Canadian Tire Mastercard, Scotiabank Scene Card, a Sears credit card, and a Holt Renfrew American Express Card. He applied for these cards both in person and online, and was successful in obtaining them. It appears as though some of those cards were used by Mr. Price to make fraudulent purchases. I am informed that Mr. Lee did not personally suffer any financial loss as a result of the conduct of Mr. Price. I am further informed that there has been a loss to American Express in the amount of $4,218.77
[3] Victim Impact Statements from both Mr. Lee and Ms. Walz were filed in this matter. I am disregarding those portions of the statements which comment on Mr. Price’s character or which make recommendations for the severity of the punishment that I should impose. Leaving those portions aside, these statements tell me, in very human and compelling terms, about the severe impact that Mr. Price’s conduct has had upon Mr. Lee and Ms. Walz, who are members of Mr. Price’s extended family. They describe a loss of trust, ongoing fear which is quite justifiable about whether their personal information has been sold to others, and a significant impact on the health of Ms. Walz in particular as a result of stress brought on by Mr. Price’s actions. These are far from victimless crimes, and characterizing them as property offences does not adequately capture the impact of these crimes on Mr. Price’s victims. By callously stealing the identity of Mr. Lee for his own personal benefit, Mr. Price instilled in his victims a genuine fear of financial ruin. Unsurprisingly, neither Mr. Lee nor Ms. Walz wish to have any further contact with Mr. Price.
[4] When the police began investigating Mr. Price as a result of the complaint made by Mr. Lee, they discovered amongst Mr. Price’s belongings a collection of stolen personal identity documents belonging to other individuals, financial records in the names of other individuals, forged financial cards and a variety of materials used to forge financial cards.
[5] It is also worth noting that at the time of the commission of these offences, Mr. Price was on bail for similar charges from Toronto, with one of the conditions of his release being that he not possess identification not in his own name. I understand that these charges have since been resolved by way of a guilty plea, and that Mr. Price received a sentence of 3 months jail on December 13, 2014. While serving that sentence, Mr. Price apparently applied for and was accepted into the Anchorage Program, a residential drug treatment program in Ottawa, a program which he intended to commence upon his statutory release date, which would have been February 10, 2015. While he was serving this sentence, the Lindsay warrant was discovered. So instead of being released on February 10, Mr. Price was arrested and brought to Lindsay to deal with these matters. He has remained in custody since that time. Including today, this works out to a period of 30 days of pre-sentence custody.
[6] Mr. Price is a college graduate, has a background as a child and youth worker, and has plans to attend Ryerson University to study for his masters in social work. His employment history includes a background of working with special needs children. Personally, he has had a difficult life, being apprehended by child welfare authorities at a young age from a single mother with her own addiction issues. Mr. Price has had a drug dependency since his teenage years, and has been on the methadone program for several years after becoming addicted to painkillers. He committed these offences with his former partner, who is also an addict and a user of street drugs, and who is now serving an 18 month sentence.
[7] Mr. Price appears to be an intelligent and articulate man, and I accept that his remorse for his conduct is genuine. I also accept that the commission of these offences was driven by his addiction.
[8] The Crown seeks a period of 90 days jail for these offences, taking into account a variety of aggravating and mitigating factors: the fact that Mr. Price had no record when he committed these offence, the fact that he was on bail for similar offences and was breaching bail conditions, the abuse of trust committed against people who provided Mr. Price with shelter, the guilty plea and the nature of the offences themselves which involved significant planning and deliberation. The defence asks me to impose what would effectively amount to a time served sentence, taking into account the pre-sentence custody which amounts to 30 actual days as of today’s date.
[9] In my view, the sentence which I impose on Mr. Price should be one which denounces his unlawful conduct in strong terms. He preyed upon the vulnerability of the victim in this case over a prolonged period of time. He was motivated by greed. His actions in impersonating Mr. Lee in person and online were sophisticated and considered. These were not impulsive crimes, and despite their being no financial loss to Mr. Lee, it is clear that these offences had a significant impact upon both him and his partner, Mr. Price’s aunt. The sentence should also be one which is likely to have a deterrent effect upon Mr. Price and other individuals who might be tempted to commit similar offences.
[10] At the same time, however, I must take into account that Mr. Price had no record at the time he committed these offences, and that his actions appear to have been driven by addiction. He is a mature adult who has been a productive member of society. If he is able to conquer his addiction, his prospects for rehabilitation are excellent. A fit sentence, in my view, is one which recognizes that the long-term protection of the public from future harm from Mr. Price is best achieved by his successful rehabilitation, and a sentence which provides him with the tools to achieve this end. I am required to impose the least restrictive sentence that is capable of adequately addressing the relevant sentencing principles, which in this case include denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation. I am also required to consider all reasonable alternatives to incarceration for all offenders. When I do so I reach the conclusion that a community-based sentence in this case is fit and proper.
[11] I will therefore direct, pursuant to section 719(3.3) of the Criminal Code, that the following information be recorded: that Mr. Price has spent 30 days in pre-sentence custody; that the sentence I would have imposed before any credit was granted is 45 days; and that Mr. Price is credited for 45 days of pre-sentence custody.
[12] The principles of denunciation and deterrence which are prevalent in this case are addressed by the pre-sentence custody and by restrictive terms in the community-based sentence which I intend to impose. To address these principles, and to assist in Mr. Price’s rehabilitation, I am suspending the passing of further sentence and placing him on probation for 3 years on the following terms:
• Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
• Appear before the court when required to do so;
• Notify the court and probation officer in advance of any change of name or address or occupation;
• Report in person to a probation officer within 2 working days and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision. Your reporting requirement ends when you have satisfied your probation officer that you have completed all of your community service hours and completed all of your counseling;
• Do not associate or communicate, in any way, by any physical, electronic or other means, or be in the company of Brett Lee or Dorothy Walz, and do not be within 100m of any place where you know Brett Lee or Dorothy Walz to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place you know them to be, except with the prior written consent of Brett Lee or Dorothy Walz filed, in advance, by that person, with the assigned probation officer. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time;
• Do not possess or consume any unlawful drugs or substances (refer to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) except with a valid prescription in your name or those available over the counter;
• Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counseling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer for substance abuse;
• You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counseling or rehabilitative programs as directed;
• Perform 150 hours of community service work on a rate and schedule to be directed by the probation officer but must be completed within 18 months of the start of this order;
• Do not possess any identification, card with a data strip or security chip, credit or debit card, credit or debit card data, a blank card with a magnetic strip, cheque, negotiable instrument or banking document unless it has been lawfully issued in your name;
• You shall not possess or use any computer or any other device that has internet access except
o With the advance written permission of your probation officer
o As required for the purposes of your work
o As required for the purposes of a recognized educational program
o Once you have completed all recommended counseling for substance abuse to the satisfaction of your probation officer.
[13] I am also making a stand-alone restitution order in favour of American Express in the amount of $4,218.77. The Crown’s request for a DNA order is granted on consent. There will be an order for forfeiture of items seized by the police, also on consent.
[14] I am required by law to impose a victim surcharge in the amount of $800 as the Crown has proceeded by indictment on these matters. I will grant Mr. Price 12 months to pay the surcharge.
Released: March 11, 2015
Signed: “Justice S. W. Konyer”
Comments
Post a Comment