R. v. Manuel, 2021 BCPC 310

Citation: R. v. Manuel 2021 BCPC 310 Date: 20211215 File No. 108943 Registry: Clearwater IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. NICOLE VALENCIA MANUEL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Counsel for the Crown: K. Bouchard Counsel for the Accused: J. Killoran Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: October 14, 2021 Date of Judgment: December 15, 2021 [ 1 ] Nicole Manuel has been convicted after trial of uttering threats to intimidate Gina Bowie and Darren Bonang from discharging their lawful duties as security guards without fear, the threats being made to them or their intimate partners or children. [ 2 ] Ms. Manuel is a member of Tiny House Warriors and is passionate in her opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX). The

facts as I have found them are set out in my decision of R. v. Manuel, 2021 BCPC 140 , 2021 B.C.P.C. 140 . In short,the threats were made during the course of a protest with her co-defendant at a pump house property of TMX. [3] I have had the benefit of a thorough Gladue report which informs me that Ms. Manuel is a knowledgeable and determinedadvocate of the culture, heritage and rights of the Secwepemc people. She recognizes her role as that of a defender of land and waterwithin the Secwepemc’uluw.

Protest is part of that role. [4] It can be assumed that when someone protests something, they wish to be heard – that their message will be understood and thatit will provoke thought, discussion and change. Ms. Manuel lost sight of those goals when she used language of intimidation against Mr.Bonang and Ms. Bowie. [5] Ms. Manuel has a dated record for prior protest activity. She is otherwise without record and has been on strict bail conditionswithout issue since October 2019.

Crown seeks a 90-100 day Conditional Sentence Order followed by a year of probation with a view togeneral and specific deterrence as well as with a view to

section 718.04, because Ms. Bowie is indigenous. [6] The impact on Ms. Bowie has been more profound than it seems Ms. Manuel recognizes. Ms. Bowie no longer wears herSimpcw logo and was concerned for her grandchildren, given the nature of the threats. Mr. Bonang was similarly impacted with securityconcerns for his family. It is no light matter. [7] Crown submitted that a jail sentence is essential because of the gravity of the offence and the impact on the victims. Mr.Killoran argued that a jail sentence, even a jail sentence in the community, is not necessary in these circumstances.

He argued Ms.Manuel has been on bail conditions for almost two years without any breaches (and now more than two years). Her criminal record isdated. He seeks a conditional discharge following a period of probation for her. [8] I have seen through video the nature and extent of the threats. I have heard directly from the victims the impact it has had onthem. I have also heard from Ms. Manuel and her counsel. [9] Protesting voices have the right to be heard but there are limits. I accept that Ms.

Manuel regrets the impact of her misguidedlanguage. [10] Crown argues that a conditional discharge is not in the public interest. The public interest here is a complex issue. There is theright to peaceful protest balanced against the right to live without threat or intimidation. There are the rights and culture of indigenouspeople as a whole – who are in conflict with each other in matters related to the pipeline - contrasted with the sentencing considerationsof indigenous people and with respect to indigenous victims. I must balance all of these in determining the appropriate sentence.

Ms.Bowie in particular suffered the indignity of slurs against her heritage in addition to the intimidation. [11] That being said, I have done the balance and I am satisfied in the circumstances that the appropriate deterrent effect andrehabilitative components can be achieved through a conditional discharge. The importance of the right to protest is in the public interest.Abusing that right with threats is not. The length of time Ms. Manuel has been on bail and the regret she has expressed demonstrate thatshe understands this.

While it will not detract from the impact the intimidation had on the victims, it is not otherwise contrary to thepublic interest to grant a discharge. The balance measures these factors, the prospects of deterrence and rehabilitation, and the publicinterests. I therefore discharge Ms. Manuel conditionally upon her completing a period of probation for 12 months. [12] The terms of the probation are as follows: 1. 2001 You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. 3.

You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or theofficer of any change of employment or occupation. 4. 2002 You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Darren Bonang and his family members, or GinaBowie and her family members. 5. 2005 You must not go to any place where Darren Bonang or his family members or Gina Bowie and her family members live, work,attend school, worship, or happen to be.

If you see them, you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures 6. 2005 You must not go to or be within 10 metres of the Trans Mountain Pipeline pump station property at Angus Horn Street andCedar Street in Blue River, British Columbia except while in a moving vehicle in transit to some other place or while walking withoutstopping to some other place. [13] There were terms sought which I am not imposing including a reporting term which serves no other purpose than reporting herresidence, and a weapons term which is not required given the nature of the intimidation and the time on release without issue. _______________________ S.D.

Frame Provincial Court Judge