R. v Dunlop, 2015 ABQB 770

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v Dunlop, 2015 ABQB 770 Date: 20151204 Docket: 121314983Q1 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Christopher Ward Dunlop Accused _____________________________________________________ Sentencing Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice K.M.

Eidsvik ________________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] After a lengthy police investigation, Christopher Dunlop was charged on September 7, 2012 with: Count 1: unlawfully causing the death of Laura Furlan, on or about the 25 th day of August, 2009, thereby committing first degree murder, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, and Count 2: indecently offering an indignity to the human remains of Laura Furlan by disposing of and concealing her naked body in a public park, contrary to

section 182 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. [ 2 ] On October 1, 2015, after several days of voir dire hearings, Mr. Dunlop pled guilty to the lesser and included offence of manslaughter and to committing an indignity to the body of Ms. Furlan. It now turns to me to sentence Mr. Dunlop for these crimes.

[ 3 ] The positions of the parties are as follows. The Crown submits that a total sentence from 14 to 16 years for both counts would be appropriate. [ 4 ] Mr. Dunlop submits that a total of 12 years for both counts is a fit and proper sentence. Facts [ 5 ] The parties agreed to a lengthy Agreed Statement of Facts and some agreed exhibits such as photographs, medical examiner and toxicology reports. I also heard from the many victims in this case and read several letters of support sent on behalf of Mr. Dunlop. The following is a

summary of these facts as I find them. [ 6 ] Ms. Furlan was a 38-year-old Calgarian who lived near downtown. She had a 15-year-old son, Lewis. She had been employed as an administrative assistant but had lost her job, and was concerned about not having enough money to pay her bills. Ms. Furlan had drug addiction issues. She was working as a sex trade worker the night that she died. She was working on the street at the same location as a friend of hers, and was planning on meeting up with her to go back to her residence together later that night. [ 7 ] Christopher Dunlop was 38 years old on August 25, 2009.

He was married to a nurse, and was raising three daughters, one of his own from a previous relationship, and two step-daughters. He worked as a computer programmer and was very involved in sports and volunteering in the community. [ 8 ] At about 3 a.m., Ms. Furlan’s friend saw her get into an orange or brownish truck. Mr. Dunlop admitted that he picked Ms. Furlan up in his truck in the early morning hours of August 25, at a time when she was working as a sex trade worker. He said that she was fully functioning, walking and talking. [ 9 ] Mr.

Dunlop later told an undercover officer that he was angry and looking for someone “who would not be missed” and someone who he could “fuck up”. [ 10 ] Ms. Furlan and Mr. Dunlop negotiated that she would have sex with him in exchange for $100. [ 11 ] Shortly after Mr. Dunlop picked Ms. Furlan up, he dropped her off at a nearby McDonald’s while she waited for him to return with money. Mr. Dunlop took $100 out of a bank machine and then returned to pick Ms. Furlan up. They then proceeded to a location to have sex. [ 12 ] Mr.

Dunlop said that when they were going to have sex, she moved from the front seat to the back seat of the truck. She took off her pants and stood up, manoeuvring herself between the seats of the truck, to facilitate this removal of her pants before sex. They then engaged in sex. [ 13 ] Mr. Dunlop explained to an officer that Ms. Furlan was naked in the back seat in a seated position and the accused was on top of, and face to face, with her. Mr. Dunlop weighed 220 pounds and is 6 feet and 2 inches tall. Ms. Furlan was 5 feet and 7 inches, and weighed 119 pounds. Mr.

Dunlop originally had a condom on during sex, but it came off during sex. [ 14 ] During the sexual intercourse, Mr. Dunlop choked Ms. Furlan using both of his hands which he placed around her neck. During oral submissions, counsel for Mr. Dunlop conceded that the choking was not consensual. Ms. Furlan lost consciousness, at which time he stopped having sex with Ms. Furlan immediately. He choked her for about 15 seconds to one minute although it could have been longer than a minute. [ 15 ] He said that after he choked her, Ms. Furlan was not moving, not breathing and did not have a pulse.

Following these events, he drove around for about two hours trying to decide what to do with Ms. Furlan’s lifeless body. [ 16 ] Mr. Dunlop decided to put Ms. Furlan’s body in Fish Creek Park and to conceal her. He dragged her out of the truck and placed her behind a berm in a well treed area, which is the same location where her body was later found by police. [ 17 ] Mr.

Dunlop made the following Internet inquiries on his computer later on August 25, 2009 between approximately noon and 1:30 pm: - Fingerprints on dead bodies - Latent fingerprints on human skin - Rates of decomposition - Methods to dispose of a human body by burial - DNA testing for semen [ 18 ] Ms. Furlan was reported missing. Her family was in a panic wondering what had happened to her and praying for her safe return. [ 19 ] On September 7, 2009, Ms. Furlan’s remains were discovered by a dog walker. Police attended the scene and found a badly decomposed body concealed by overturned trees and grass.

Drag marks were observed and the deceased’s socks were half off which suggested that the body had been dragged from the road to the crime scene. [ 20 ] Due to significant body decomposition, police were only able to confirm Ms. Furlan’s identity through fingerprints.

Decomposition of the body was accelerated due to exposure to moist and warm summertime conditions. Her family was not allowed to see her in such bad shape. [ 21 ] On September 23, 2009, at around 8:15 a.m., a Parks and Recreation worker noticed a suspicious vehicle in Fish Creek Park. The vehicle drove into the park, stopped and the driver got out. The driver was carrying a bag and was walking down the berm. The worker described the vehicle as being a newer orange Dodge Ram pick-up truck. She was able to provide the first part of the licence plate number. Mr.

Dunlop confessed that he had gone back to further dispose of Ms. Furlan’s body a few days later, but that he was seen by a park ranger and had to leave the scene to avoid detection. [ 22 ] Police interviewed Mr. Dunlop for the first time on October 15, 2009 to see if he had any connection to the investigation. [ 23 ] On October 17, 2009 police obtained a search warrant to search Mr. Dunlop’s truck for evidence. The forensic evidence establishes that Ms. Furlan was in the vehicle at some point. The computer searches I referenced were found on Mr. Dunlop’s work computer in December 2009.

An undercover operation was subsequently commenced by the police to aid in the investigation. [ 24 ] Mr. Dunlop made admissions to undercover officers years later that he was responsible for Ms. Furlan’s death. He suggested that her death was due to an altercation that had gone wrong. He was arrested on September 7, 2012 after making this admission. [ 25 ] As mentioned above, Ms. Furlan’s body was badly decomposed due to summer weather conditions. Much of the forensic evidence that may have been available was destroyed. The following is a

summary of expert evidence that was tendered in this case. [ 26 ] Dr. Belenky, medical examiner, conducted an autopsy on September 9, 2009. In his report, he noted that there was significant post-mortem decomposition to the body with a partial skeletonization of the head, neck and upper back. [ 27 ] Dr. Singer conducted toxicology tests which indicate that several drugs, including methadone, trazadone and zoplicone, were found in Ms. Furlan’s liver. Dr. Singer postulated that the combined drugs found in her body were sufficiently high to produce “severe central nervous system depression and death.” [ 28 ] Dr.

Belenky concluded that based on the lack of other traumatic injuries detectible due to severe decomposition, and in light of Dr. Singer’s report, he opined in September 2009 that Ms. Furlan died as a result of combined drug toxicity. [ 29 ] In the fall of 2012, Dr. Dowling, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner, agreed to review the case of Ms. Furlan’s death at the request of the Calgary Police Service. He authored an amended report. [ 30 ] Dr. Dowling had the benefit of additional information that was obtained by police investigators as a result of an undercover investigation. Dr. Dowling’s report indicates that Ms.

Furlan’s death is “undetermined”. [ 31 ] Dr. Dowling reviewed Mr. Dunlop’s confession to undercover police as well as to the police after his arrest. Dr. Dowling determined whether there is a medical explanation for what Mr. Dunlop said he did to cause Ms. Furlan’s death. His opinion is as follows: i. Mr. Dunlop’s description of how he strangled Ms Furlan using both hands is consistent with a medical explanation as to how she died. ii. Mr. Dunlop’s estimate of the time line of neck compression to death, which is up to one minute of compression, could have caused Ms Furlan’s death. This is consistent with Mr.

Dunlop’s admission that she died in his truck. iii. Dr. Dowling’s opinion is that urinary incontinence is expected to occur very close to the time of death and at the site where death occurred. Mr. Dunlop said that fluid, presumed to be urine from Ms. Furlan, was present on the back seat. [ 32 ] At the preliminary hearing, Dr. Dowling’s evidence was that using both hands to compress the neck is inherently dangerous to life. A small amount of continuous pressure is needed.

He testified that when the blood flow is cut off for a period of up to about 15 seconds, unconsciousness can occur, but if the pressure is released, the person will regain consciousness, but if the pressure is continued for up to a minute, then death can occur. [ 33 ] Dr. Dowling also testified that Mr. Dunlop’s description of Ms. Furlan as fully functioning when she was with him before her death is inconsistent with what medical examiners would see in the vast majority of drug-related deaths. Ms. Furlan’s behaviour as described by Mr.

Dunlop describes a non-intoxicated individual or if she was intoxicated, she was not showing it, which may have been due to her high level of tolerance to the drugs she had in her body. Further Dr. Dowling testified that Ms. Furlan’s behaviour during the time she was with Mr. Dunlop is not consistent with someone who was dying from drug toxicity. [ 34 ] Dr. Dowling also considered the possibility that Mr. Dunlop struck Ms. Furlan. However, there were no visible blunt injuries on examination so no physical findings to substantiate this possibility. [ 35 ] Dr.

Chatterton, toxicologist, testified that the toxicology samples taken from Ms. Furlan two weeks following her death is of very limited value. His opinion is that it is unlikely that the measured concentration of drugs in a liver sample two weeks after death is representative of the measured concentration that would have been present at the time of death or a few hours beforehand. It is not possible to say with any degree of certainty when Ms. Furlan took the drugs found in her body and what their effect would have been on her at the time. Victim Impact Statements [ 36 ] Not surprisingly, Ms.

Furlan’s death has had a devastating effect on her family. Death of a loved one is always hard to deal

with, but a loss in the circumstances I just finished describing are incredibly worse. The victim impact statements that were read to medescribed the panic of when Ms. Furlan went missing, the devastation of the news of her being found dead, and the terrible consequencesfrom the subsequent fall out. [37] Ms. Furlan’s death attracted a lot of media scrutiny. Calgarians are very concerned when such crimes are committed in theircommunity. Unfortunately, Ms. Furlan was not portrayed in the nicest light and this led to embarrassment and shame, especially to heryoung son, Lewis.

He bravely testified about losing the will to succeed, failing in school, getting arrested himself, drinking, becomingabusive, isolated and unsure of relationships with women. Of course he misses his mom terribly. He has managed to return to his studieshowever and is presently in university. [38] Catherine Furlan (Ms. Furlan’s mother), Michelle Furlan (sister), Lisa Furlan Diaz (sister) and Chris Lowry (Lewis’s father)also gave heartrending statements about their loss and how much they miss Ms. Furlan. Circumstances of Christopher Ward Dunlop [39] Mr. Dunlop is now 41 years old.

He is a software developer by trade and was working in that capacity when the undercoveroperation began and during the operation. He received a computer programming diploma in 1996 and has a grade 12 education. He hasan unrelated criminal record (impaired driving in 2006) and no history of violence. [40] He has the support of family who was present at sentencing: his wife, his step daughters, mother in law, his parents and manyfriends. Fifteen letters of reference were filed which describe a man very unlike the one who interacted with Ms. Furlan the earlymorning of August 25, 2009.

Most are shocked by this uncharacteristic behaviour. His wife of several years has stood by him. Shedescribed Mr. Dunlop as someone who doesn’t know how to be selfish, macho or mean. He was very supportive of her during a seriousillness and supportive of his sister to the point of donating bone marrow to try and help her survive cancer. She said that a guard at theRemand Centre had pulled her aside to tell her that Mr. Dunlop was “one of the good ones”.

She described a man who volunteered formany organisations, was a coach for her daughter’s wrestling team, was a very involved parent and drove his girls to school every day.He did not display any anger issues but indeed was an example of calm and restraint in several different examples she gave. [41] His daughters, parents, cousins and friends repeated the same – a hard working sport playing, very loving person during hislifetime in Saskatchewan, where he was from, and in Calgary.

Crown’s Position [42] The Crown argues that this case is about an angry man who sought a vulnerable person who he could hurt and get away withdoing so. This act of malicious intention persisted during the sex and choking Ms. Furlan at the same time. [43] The Crown submits that Mr. Dunlop knew that the unlawful act of wrapping his hands around Ms. Furlan’s neck and applyingpressure while on top of her would likely subject Ms. Furlan to the risk of life-threatening injuries or that Mr. Dunlop, knowing theprobable consequence of the act, proceeded recklessly in the face of the risk.

These actions were objectively dangerous. [44] The Crown seeks an inference to be made that Mr. Dunlop intended an aggravated sexual assault of Ms. Furlan whichunexpectedly led to her death. This is because of the connection of unconsented sex during the choking combined with the aggravatingact of “maiming” since she was less able to fight back in these circumstances (R v Schultz (1962) (AB CA), 38 C.R. 76(Alta CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, October 2, 1962) [45] The Crown submits that Mr. Dunlop committed the most serious form of manslaughter, i.e. that this is a case of near murderthat elevates Mr.

Dunlop’s level of moral blameworthiness to a high level. [46] The Crown further submits that the act of dumping Ms. Furlan’s naked body in Fish Creek Park without dignity is a separatetransaction apart from the manslaughter. Mr. Dunlop disposed of Ms. Furlan’s body hours after he killed her. The Crown argues that heplanned and executed his plan of where he was going to dump her which is aggravated by the fact that it was done to conceal evidence. [47] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Dunlop is 13 years for the manslaughter count.

It further submitsthat when consideration is given to the appropriate sentence for the indignity committed after the murder, a consecutive sentence of threeyears is warranted. The Crown argues that a total sentence of no less than 14 years and as high of 16 years is a fit sentence in thecircumstances of this case Mr. Dunlop’s Position [48] Mr. Dunlop disagrees with the Crown’s

interpretation of the facts. The defence suggests instead that the agreed evidenceshows that the initial interactions between Mr. Dunlop and Ms. Furlan were those of a common negotiation between a sex trade workerand client including the negotiated price of $100, dropping Ms. Furlan off for a period of time so he could go and get some money andreturning to pick her up, and the use of a condom initially during sex. [49] Subsequently, the medical expert evidence shows that there was a lack of broken bones or other serious trauma.

Concedingthat the evidence was difficult to interpret because of the decomposition, nonetheless the physical findings on Ms. Furlan’s body did notinclude injuries which one may expect to find inflicted from someone who was angry and wanted to beat someone up. [50] Mr. Dunlop disagrees with the Crown’s submission that it was an “intended rape”, but agrees that the cause of death was theillegal act of Mr. Dunlop applying pressure to Ms. Furlan’s neck which consisted of an objective foreseeable risk of bodily harm. Duringoral submissions on sentencing, counsel for Mr.

Dunlop conceded that the choking was not consensual and stated that it went from being

consensual sex to non-consensual sex at the time of choking which he agrees amounts to a sexual assault. [ 51 ] Mr. Dunlop argues that based on the Agreed Statement of Facts coupled with the act of choking, this case of manslaughter falls in the second category of R v Laberge (K.K. ) , 1995 ABCA 196 , 165 AR 375 . Counsel for Mr. Dunlop submits that Mr.

Dunlop’s level of culpability equates with conduct that was likely to put the victim at risk of or cause serious bodily injury (as opposed to “life- threatening” injuries). [ 52 ] He points to factors that Laberge sets out that should be considered in determining Mr.

Dunlop’s moral culpability including that there was no weapon used, the degree of force for the strangulation was about 13 lbs, the injuries did not include fractures or other suggestions of brutality or gratuitous violence, that the degree of deliberation was not great, that the post-offence conduct shows panic rather than deliberation and that there was an element of chance in the death that occurred. [ 53 ] Mr. Dunlop agrees with the Crown that the offence of committing an indignity was a separate transaction in this case. [ 54 ] Mr. Dunlop argues that in light of the personal antecedents of Mr.

Dunlop, a fit and proper sentence in this case is 12 years, comprising of 8 years for manslaughter and a consecutive sentence of 4 years for indignity. Analysis [ 55 ] The sentencing principles that apply here are not controversial and are agreed to between the parties. [ 56 ] First I need to consider ss. 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code that set out the fundamental purpose and the objectives of sentencing.

Section 718 provides as follows: 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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; (

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 and to the community. [ 57 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code , s. 718.1. Parity of sentences is also important. To help in this regard, a review of cases involving similar situations is helpful. I’ll come to those shortly. [ 58 ] The Crown and Mr. Dunlop also agree that in this case, denunciation and deterrence are paramount. [ 59 ] The Crown argues that not only should the sentence deter Mr.

Dunlop, but it should also deter others from committing like offences. [ 60 ] The defence submits that rehabilitation cannot be lost in the equation. Review of the Case Law [ 61 ] The circumstances surrounding the offence of manslaughter vary widely from case to case. As a result, a broad range of appropriate sentences for the offence of manslaughter in different cases also vary. The leading case in determining what is an appropriate sentence for manslaughter is Laberge .

Both parties referred to it in their argument. [ 62 ] In that case, the Alberta Court of Appeal provides guidance for determining levels of culpability and evaluating the moral blameworthiness in manslaughter cases. Chief Justice Fraser, writing for the majority of the Court states: [6] All unlawful act manslaughter cases have two common requirements conduct which has caused the death of another; and fault short of intention to kill.

However, despite these common elements, the offence of unlawful act manslaughter covers a wide range of cases extending from those which may be classified as near accident at the one extreme and near murder at the other: R. v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All E.R. 833 (C.A.) ; R. v. Eneas [1994] B.C.J. No. 262 (B.C.C.A.) . Different degrees of moral culpability attach to each along a continuum within that spectrum.

It is precisely because a sentence for manslaughter can range: from a suspended sentence up to life imprisonment that the court must determine for sentencing purposes what rung on the moral culpability ladder the offender reached when he committed the prohibited act.

The purpose of this exercise is to ensure that the sentence imposed fits the degree of moral fault of the offender for the harm done. [ 63 ] At paragraph 8 of Laberge the Court adds that the “[t]he nature and quality of the unlawful act itself, the method by which it was committed and the manner it was committed in terms of the degree of planning and deliberation are all relevant to this inquiry”. [ 64 ] Chief Justice Fraser then identifies three broad groups of unlawful acts at para 9:

i. those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, bodily injury; ii. those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, serious bodily injury; and iii. those which are likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, life-threatening injuries.

She also specifies that it is possible to categorize for the purposes of sentencing the level of fault inherent in the crime committed onlywhen the offender’s proven mental state at the time the offence occurred is evaluated in the context of the crime itself, i.e. in terms of itsrelative degree of seriousness. [65] The subjective intent, when established in a case over and above the requisite objective mens rea, is important in assessing theoffender’s blameworthiness for sentencing purposes. [66] In addition the court must take into account the personal circumstances of the offender that may mitigate or aggravateculpability: Laberge at para 10. [67] Chief Justice Fraser also explained how to assess the offender’s moral culpability and emphasized that other relevant factorsalso need to be taken into account. [68] I have reviewed the cases proposed by both parties.

The ones that are mst instructive to sentencing in this case are thefollowing. [69] In R v McCaig, [2003] OJ No. 6258 (Sup Ct J), the offender was a friend of the victim and she strangled her to death in thevictim’s own home. The Court found that the aggravating factors were that that she lied to the Court, that it was a home invasion, andthat she put the body in the freezer and then onto a trolley covering her with a garbage bag. The offender’s criminal record was also anaggravating factor. The Court found that the only mitigating factor was her guilty plea.

The offender was sentenced to 13 yearsimprisonment. [70] This case is similar to our facts, the strangulation cause of death and subsequent indignity to the victim’s body. There was noseparate count of indignity like there is here. The criminal record was worse. The judge thought that the joint submission was on the highend but accepted it nonetheless. [71] In R v Warwick, 2006 ONCJ 518, following a meaningless argument between the 37-year-old offender and his 33-year-oldcommon-law wife, the offender lost control and strangled his wife.

The offender left her body on the floor for a day, and then put herbody into a shallow grave and weighted it down where it remained for 13 days before it was found by the police. The Court found thatthe aggravating factors included that the violence was extreme as he used his bare hands to manually choke the victim to death in adomestic abuse context. In addition, the Court found that his conduct after the victim’s death was aggravating including the way hedisposed of the body, the fact that the offender lied to the police and the family about the victim’s whereabouts.

The Court also took intoaccount the fact that he had a criminal record, his substance abuse issues, his personality disorder, a report that confirmed his remorseand the fact that he pled guilty. After noting that the Ontario Court of Appeal had set a range of sentence for this “aggravatedmanslaughter” of 8 to 12 years, the offender was sentenced to the jointly submitted suggestion of 12 years. [72] The Warwick case is also similar on its facts to here, except that it was in a domestic context.

Again there was no separateindignity charge and the record was worse. [73] In R v Woermann (1992), (MB CA), 81 Man R (2d) 255 (CA), the offender was charged with seconddegree murder and convicted by a jury of manslaughter. The defences of intoxication and provocation were left with the jury and it wasunclear as to which defence was accepted such as the jury arrived at a guilty verdict of manslaughter. The victim was a sex trade workerwho the offender picked up after a night of drinking. He then took her to his home. The victim attempted to steal the offender’s wallet.

Astruggle took place and the offender strangled the victim with a wire. The offender then hid the nude body in his garage. The nextevening he wrapped the body in a vapour barrier paper, wedged it in the trunk of his vehicle and disposed of it in an industrial waste bin.After the body was discovered, he confessed his guilt. Philp JA, writing for the Court, noted that the offence was a particularly brutalone and remarked it was merciless and cold blooded.

The sentencing judge decision was overturned and the 5 years imprisonmentimposed was substituted for 12 years. [74] This case was cited by both parties here and also has fairly similar circumstances to this case. [75] The Defence counsel conceded that none of his other cases were on all fours of this one. One was the same as the Crown’s,and the following case is also helpful to review in my opinion. [76] In R v Bayko, 2009 BCSC 1956 the offender and the victim, who was pregnant, had been in a personal relationship the yearpreceding the victim’s death.

The offender was struggling with alcohol, depression and later started using drugs. The victim was addictedto crack cocaine and suffered from mental health problems. The offender first denied killing her and a month later told the police that acombination of his drug and alcohol consumption, in conjunction with the victim telling him that she wanted to end the relationshipcaused him to lose control of his senses. He grabbed her around the throat and maintained that hold for several minutes.

After she lostconsciousness, he fled the scene without trying to obtain medical assistance, leaving her body in the alleyway. The victim died of manualstrangulation. She suffered blunt force trauma to the head, a broken thyroid bone, a fractured thorax and extensive bruising and fingernailmarks to her neck. The sentencing judge concluded that the violence inflicted on the victim was not fleeting nor was it insignificant. Heconcluded that the offender brutally assaulted her and in doing so he caused her death.

Relying on the offender’s statement read in court,he accepted that the offender’s conduct was indicative of early acceptance of responsibility of his actions and that he was remorseful.The sentencing judge imposed 8 years imprisonment. [77] This case is more serious in that there was more violence used and injuries inflicted. However, the offender came forward andconfessed only a month later unlike here where a lengthy investigation was required and a guilty plea was not made until almost six

years after Ms. Furlan’s death. The sentence was lower however than similar ones discussed above and Defence counsel suggested thatthis should serve as authority to sentence Mr. Dunlop to 8 years for the manslaughter charge. [78] The Crown and Mr. Dunlop agree with respect to applicable case law regarding indignity and that the offence constituted aseparate transaction in this case. [79] In R v McKenzie, 2000 ABQB 238, aff’d 2002 ABCA 151, the jury acquitted the offender of second degree murder andconvicted him of manslaughter and of improperly interfering with the victim’s remains.

The Court of Appeal upheld a consecutivesentence of 14 years for manslaughter and 4.5 years for the indignity charge. The trial judge noted that the offender took grotesque andextreme measures to dispose of the body of the 12-year-old victim. He burned the body of the victim twice in a bed of blazing tires tothen store the remaining burnt bones in a pail. He then drove a great distance to throw the bones off a bridge. [80] The facts of this case are worse than the present one. [81] In R v Valliere, 2005 BCSC 124, the offender was acquitted of manslaughter and pleaded guilty to offering an indignity to adead body.

The offender and the victim were living together in an intimate relationship. The victim died as result of an altercation withthe offender. Rather than call the authorities, he chose to conceal the death. He settled on a location in a little-used area over anembankment close to a hospital. The offender transported the body in a backpack, dumped it into a culvert and covered the entrance withrocks. The offender lied to the police and pretended to assist them in their search for the victim. The victim’s body was discovered 15months later following an undercover investigation.

The 28-year-old offender had no criminal record and who was not remorseful wassentenced to 18 months for indignity. [82] The facts in this case are fairly similar. Mitigating Factors [83] The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Dunlop entered a guilty plea, but argues that considering how late in the process it wasentered, it has a limited mitigating weight. The jury was scheduled to be selected for the next day and witnesses had been prepared andscheduled. The Crown notes that one of Ms. Furlan’s family members made travel plans and had increased anxiety for thecommencement of the trial.

The Crown also acknowledges that it was a guilty plea to an appropriate offence and argues that the Crownhad a strong case. [84] I agree that it is not an early guilty plea, but I find that Mr. Dunlop’ guilty plea is nonetheless a mitigating factor. It savedseveral weeks of a planned jury trial. [85] Mr. Dunlop read a statement in Court and I believe that he is remorseful.

It is also clear that he is strongly supported by hisfamily and friends. [86] I also take into account that before the events, he was employed, provided for his family and contributed to society in general. [87] Although not a mitigating factor per se, I also note that Mr. Dunlop has no related criminal record. Aggravating Factors [88] There are many aggravating factors in this case. The first one relates to the vulnerability of victim. Ms. Furlan was vulnerablebecause she was working as a sex trade worker that night.

Not only are sex trade workers entitled to the full measure of protection of thelaw, but the fact that such persons are particularly vulnerable victims may be properly treated as an aggravating factor. Violent crimes,especially those committed against particularly vulnerable victims, require sentences with significant denunciatory and deterrentcomponents. It is with concern that I note that Ms.

Furlan died in the course of the dangerous activity which has ultimately led to someour prostitution laws being struck down because they caused more risk that may be necessary in this field: see generally Canada(Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 , [2013] 3 SCR 1101. [89] Ms. Furlan was also vulnerable by virtue of her size and physical position below Mr. Dunlop who dominated andoverpowered her.

She was naked and in the back seat of his truck, in a small confined space and completely alone. [90] The context of the sexual relationship may well have been a consensual one between negotiating parties at the beginninghowever it cannot be forgotten that Mr. Dunlop admitted to an undercover officer that he wanted to hurt someone who would not bemissed. He resiles from this now and I agree that many of the admitted facts, including the lack of evidence of any further gratuitousviolence in the sense of broken bones is missing here.

Nonetheless he has admitted that the choking was not consensual and as a resultpart of their sexual encounter can be catagorised as a sexual assault – which is an aggravating factor in my view. [91] Another aggravating factor is that, after Mr. Dunlop killed Ms. Furlan, he drove around for two hours thinking about what todo with the body and where he was going to get rid of her body. Mr. Dunlop then decided on dumping the body in Fish Creek Parkwhere he took her, concealing her behind a berm in tall grass and under branches he placed on top of her. Ms. Furlan was left withoutdignity, naked in a park.

The fact that no one found her until two weeks passed speaks to the secluded location. As a result, the body wasdecomposed and evidence was destroyed. [92] A further aggravating factor is that he researched how to clean up his crime on the computer and returned to the crime scenelater to try and execute this plan. Sentence [93] Mr. Dunlop chose a vulnerable victim who he ultimately choked to death while involved in what ultimately became an

aggravated sexual assault under s 273 of the Criminal Code . These unlawful acts of choking and sexual assault were likely to put the victim at risk of, or cause, life-threatening injuries, the most serious category described in Laberge . In my view Mr. Dunlop’s moral culpability for his actions is higher than what his counsel has submitted especially in light of the combination of actions which led to her death. However, I also am of the view that his actions should fall within the lower end of that range in light of the lack of other gratuitous violence and other circumstances. [ 94 ] There is no doubt that Ms.

Furlan is terribly missed and that her family and friends have suffered terribly from her loss. [ 95 ] Accordingly, in light of the sentencing factors that I have described, the cases that deal with sentences in similar circumstances, the mitigating guilty plea and aggravating factors and other circumstances of this crime that I have described, a just and appropriate sentence in my view for the count of manslaughter is 11 years to be served in a penitentiary. [ 96 ] Further, a just sentence for the indignity Mr. Dunlop perpetrated on Ms.

Furlan’s body is 2 years to be served consecutively to the manslaughter sentence, for a total of 13 years. [ 97 ] Mr. Dunlop has spent almost 39 months in remand awaiting trial. He should be credited for this time he has served on a 2 to 1 basis. [ 98 ] In addition I make the following ancillary orders: a mandatory DNA Order, a mandatory weapons prohibition order and a lifetime sexual offender registry order. Conclusion [ 99 ] Mr. Dunlop, I know that you regret your actions of August 25, 2009.

Accordingly, to repeat, I sentence you to 11 years on count 1 and 2 years on count 2, for a total of 13 years, less 78 months credit for the time you have already served on your sentence. When you are ultimately released I hope that you can return to be a productive member of our society. [ 100 ] To the Furlan family, especially Laura’s mother and son Lewis, this sentence will not bring Laura back and of course no criminal proceedings can do that. For now however, the trial and sentencing processes are over, and I wish you good luck in your studies Lewis and peace in the future.

Heard on the 20th day of November, 2015. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4th day of December, 2015. K.M. Eidsvik J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Shane Parker, Q.C. and Hyatt Mograbee for the Crown L. Kim Ross and Stephen Bitzer for the Accused