 |
| John L. Hill |
The Petrini family and their neighbour, Scott Brajcich, were good neighbours in Port Coquitlam, B.C. But the relationship quickly deteriorated on Dec. 2, 2021, when Brajcich was disturbed by the Petrini family’s unemployed sons, Jordan and Jacob, who repeatedly revved a truck’s engine while trying to manoeuvre it out of the mud on the Petrini property.
Brajcich became irritated by the noise and intended to let the brothers know his dissatisfaction by approaching Jordan and Jacob and giving them a piece of his mind. The dispute escalated from verbal threats to a physical fight, during which Jacob struck Brajcich with a baseball bat and later discharged a rifle nearby. Brajcich suffered physical and psychological harm. Police became involved, and charges were laid.
illust-monster: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Both brothers were first-time offenders with no prior criminal history and limited financial means. In sentencing Jordan, the judge found a conditional discharge inappropriate because of the seriousness of the offence, Jordan’s anger issues, unsafe firearm storage and his role in creating a dangerous situation that enabled Jacob’s firearm offence. The judge emphasized denunciation, deterrence and public safety in imposing a jail sentence, but did not address Jordan’s ability to pay when ordering restitution.
The sentencing judge accepted the joint submission for Jacob but added a $10,000 restitution condition to his probation, which had not been part of the agreement. For Jordan, the judge imposed a “time served” jail sentence of 30 days, followed by two years’ probation, including a $5,000 restitution condition, a firearms prohibition, weapons forfeiture and a DNA order.
The brothers appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Petrini, 2025 BCCA 471). On appeal, Jacob challenged only the restitution condition. The Crown conceded the judge erred by imposing restitution beyond the joint submission and agreed it should be quashed. Jordan also sought to quash the restitution condition and argued that the judge erred in principle by imposing imprisonment and probation rather than a conditional discharge. The Crown conceded that the restitution order was imposed without inquiry into Jordan’s ability to pay but opposed further intervention.
With respect to Jacob Petrini’s appeal, the sole issue was whether the sentencing judge erred by adding a restitution condition to Jacob’s probation order that was not part of the joint submission. The Crown conceded, and the court agreed, that this was an error in principle. Under R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, a joint submission must be accepted unless it is contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Where a joint submission is silent on a particular order, it is presumed to have been considered and deliberately excluded.
In Jacob’s case, the judge expressly found the joint submission to be in the public interest and acceded to it yet nonetheless added the restitution condition. This improper departure from the joint submission justified appellate intervention, and Jacob’s appeal was allowed to the extent that the restitution condition was quashed.
Jordan Petrini appealed both the restitution condition and the refusal to grant a conditional discharge.
Regarding the restitution issue, the court held that imposing restitution as a condition of probation without first inquiring into the offender’s ability to pay is an error in principle. No restitution submissions were made for Jordan, and the record showed that he was unemployed, had no assets and was financially supported by his father. The sentencing judge, therefore, erred by imposing restitution without conducting an ability-to-pay inquiry. Jordan’s appeal was allowed to this limited extent, and the restitution condition was quashed. The Crown conceded that a stand-alone restitution order could not be imposed on appeal because the victim’s losses were not readily ascertainable on the record.
However, in addressing the conditional discharge issue, the court rejected Jordan’s argument that the sentencing judge erred in refusing a conditional discharge. The psychological assessment supported the judge’s findings regarding Jordan’s anger issues, and the attribution of improper firearm storage to Jordan was well-grounded in the evidence. Jordan was the only person in the house with a possession and acquisition licence (PAL), and he admitted to unsafe storage.
Unsafe storage was also evident in police photographs. It was permissible to treat Jordan’s unsafe firearm storage as an aggravating factor, even though it went beyond the strict elements of the offence, because it formed part of the surrounding circumstances of the offence. The judge also considered the mitigating effects of Jordan’s pre-sentence custody and the firearms prohibition and forfeiture orders. Overall, the court found no error in principle, held that Jordan was merely asking the court to reweigh sentencing factors, and deferred to the judge’s conclusion that a custodial sentence, rather than a conditional discharge, was required in the public interest to reflect denunciation and general deterrence.
The two brothers were partially successful in their appeals. The brothers’ appeal resulted in the quashing of the restitution condition in their probation orders.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.