R v Taschuk, 2021 ABQB 326

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Taschuk, 2021 ABQB 326 Date: 20210426 Docket: 200117448Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Tristan Allen Taschuk Accused Restriction on Publication Judicial Interim Release – See the Criminal Code ,

section 517 . By Court Order, this decision and the evidence taken, information given or representations made shall not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: This decision is available from the court file. It may be published after the accused is discharged after a preliminary inquiry or, if the accused is ordered to stand trial, after the end of the trial. Editorial Notice : The restriction on publication ended on September 22, 2022. __________​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​______________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Mr. Justice B.R.

Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Tristan Taschuk seeks judicial interim release. He is charged with the second degree murder of Harun Baran on January 23, 2020, at or near Edmonton, Alberta. He has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the death of Mr. Baran – so for more than a year. His trial in this court is scheduled for March of 2022 – so about 10 months from now.

[ 2 ] Given the charge against Mr. Taschuk, CC s 522(2) provides that the onus is on him to show cause why his detention in custody is not justified within the meaning of CC s 515(10). [ 3 ] There appears to be no “first” ground concern. But the Crown submits that Mr. Taschuk has not met his onus of showing that his continued detention is not justified under CC s 515(10)(

b) and (c). [ 4 ] Ms. Andress presented a detailed outline of the facts alleged by the Crown. In very brief

summary, Mr. Baran was a street level seller of illicit drugs. He attended in a pick-up truck at Mr. Taschuk’s residence (his mother’s residence) to make a delivery of drugs very late at night. Security video from a neighboring house shows a male, allegedly Mr. Taschuk, get into the truck which drives off. The truck returns a little while later. A male, allegedly Mr. Taschuk, is seen pushing something heavy (allegedly Mr. Baran’s body) into the back-seat area of the truck. The truck drives off again. A little while later a male, allegedly Mr.

Taschuk, is seen walking from the direction towards which the truck left and going into Mr. Taschuk’s residence. [ 5 ] Later the police received reports of a truck with a body in it parked not too distant from Mr. Taschuk’s residence. The body was that of Mr. Baran. Mr. Baran had been stabbed many times in the neck and chest and in other parts of his body. This was the cause of his death. [ 6 ] Their inquiries led the police to Mr. Taschuk. He initially told police that he had seen Mr. Baran that night but only briefly. Later he told police that he had gone with Mr.

Baran to a bank machine and then returned to his house. Some sort of argument or fight broke out between them. Mr. Taschuk did not know why there had been a fight but he said words to the effect of “Somehow I killed him.” [ 7 ] Police found Mr. Baran’s DNA in blood samples taken from the door of Mr. Taschuk’s residence. [ 8 ] In a subsequent interview with the police Mr. Taschuk indicated that he had mental health problems and there was some confirmation of this by paramedics. [ 9 ] It appears that the Crown’s case against Mr. Taschuk is strong – at least on the issue of whether he committed the criminal act.

The materials and submissions at this bail hearing did not go very far into the question of mens rea . Mr. Sims mentioned that there may be mens rea issues relating to intoxication. He also suggested that self-defence could be raised. He did not elaborate. He also indicated that the voluntariness of Mr. Taschuk’s statements to police will be at issue. [ 10 ] Mr. Taschuk is 32 years old. He has no criminal record. He has had substance abuse problems for several years.

The materials provided on this application indicate that he has been “working on mental health” and “seeing different doctors to try and improve health” since 2019. The materials indicate that he was in “rehab” in 2016. I infer that at least by 2020 his drug addiction had returned. [ 11 ] Mr. Taschuk’s application focuses strongly on the bail plan he has proposed. It has these elements: 1. Mr. Taschuk would deposit $10,000 cash security. 2. Mr. Taschuk’s grandmother would provide a surety in which she would promise to pay $1000.00 in the event that Mr. Taschuk breached his bail conditions. 3.

The bail conditions would require Mr. Taschuk to live in his grandmother’s home in rural Alberta. It is located on a farm about 45 minutes from Edmonton. Mr. Taschuk’s grandmother and her husband (I am not certain whether or not he is Mr. Taschuk’s grandfather) are the only persons residing there. Mr. Taschuk’s grandmother is 70 years old. Both she and her husband were in court when this application was made. 4. The bail conditions would also include: house arrest, a reporting condition, “no contact conditions”, “no go conditions”, abstinence conditions, no weapons conditions, a condition requiring Mr.

Taschuk to obtain treatment for his mental health issues and, if thought necessary, a requirement that Mr. Taschuk wear an electronic tracking monitor. [ 12 ] I note that Mr. Taschuk’s application is supported by a number of members of his family and community who have written letters to the court describing in extremely positive terms the Tristan Taschuk they know and expressing concern about the deterioration of his mental health while he is in custody. [ 13 ] I have considered the authorities that were cited to me: R v St.

Cloud , 2015 SCC 27 ; R v Link , 1990 ABCA 55 ; and R v Tooke , 2005 ABQB 974 . [ 14 ] In my view, the proposed bail plan would adequately address both the first and second possible justifications for denying Mr. Taschuk bail ( CC s. 515(10)(

a) and (b)). Implementation of the proposed bail plan would make his continued detention unnecessary to ensure his attendance in court or for the protection or safety of the public. [ 15 ] However, in my view, Mr. Taschuk has not shown that his continued detention is not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. [ 16 ] In reaching that conclusion I have consider the elements that CC s. 515(10(

c) requires me to consider. The apparent strength of the Crown’s case is high. The gravity of the offence is also high – there is no more grave an offence than murder. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence appear to involve extreme violence resulting from a drug transaction somehow gone wrong – and all too frequent event in this community. They do not involve the use of a firearm – but they involve the vicious use of a knife. If Mr. Taschuk is convicted of the offence with which he is charged the mandatory sentence will be life imprisonment with no eligibility to apply for parole for at least 10 years.

[ 17 ] Further, though, as I have said, the proposed bail plan would, in my view, adequately address the second ground concern, I am not totally satisfied that it would produce a sufficiently safe environment for Mr. Taschuk and his grandmother and her husband. The circumstances involve the violent death of a person who delivered drugs. I expect he was part of a drug trafficking organization and that other members of that organization may be anxious to avenge his death. If Mr. Taschuk’s isolated location at his grandmother’s farm became known to that organization, I fear that Mr.

Taschuk, his grandmother and her husband would be in significant danger. [ 18 ] Given all of these considerations, in my view, a reasonable member of the community would be satisfied that denial of judicial interim release to Mr. Taschuk is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. I regret the distress my decision will cause Mr. Taschuk, his family and his friends. Heard on the 23 rd day of April, 2021. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of April, 2021. B.R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Kate Andress for the Crown David Sims for the Respondent