R. v. Dejaeger, 2015 NUCJ 35

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Dejaeger, 2015 NUCJ 35 Date: 20151022 Docket: 08-15-416; 08-15-417 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Eric Dejaeger ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Cooper Counsel (Crown): B. McLaren Counsel (Accused): M. Kempt Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: September 29, 2015; October 22, 2015 Matters: Criminal Code, s. 149(1) ; s. 155 ; s. 156 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

DISCLAIMER PAGE Restriction on Publication: Restriction on Publication: By court order made under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , “any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.” Anonymized Judgment Disclaimer: This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Dejaeger has pled guilty to the following charges: • That between January 1, 1974 and December 31, 1976: he committed an indecent assault on RW, a male person, contrary to

section s. 156 of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code]; and • that he committed an attempted buggery on RW, contrary to s. 155 of the Criminal Code ; and • that between January 1, 1975 and December 31, 1978: he committed an indecent assault on TT, a female person, contrary to s. 149(1) of the Criminal Code ; and • that he committed an indecent assault on JT, a male person, s. 156 of the Criminal Code . II. FACTS [ 2 ] The facts are as set out in a written Agreed Statement of Facts filed by counsel. [ 3 ] Mr. Dejaeger is originally from Belgium.

In 1974 to 1978, he was living in Canada, studying to become a Roman Catholic Priest. He was attending a theological college in Edmonton, Alberta. As part of his studies he found himself in a small community in Northern Alberta. While attending a prayer retreat in this small community, Mr. Dejaeger met RW, a nine-year old altar boy. Mr. Dejaeger sexually assaulted RW while at the prayer retreat. He continued his assaultive behaviour towards RW, sexually assaulting him approximately 10 times over a four year period. These sexual assaults took place in RW's home and on the land while hunting. Mr.

Dejaeger told RW that the incidents were “secret” and that he was not to tell his parents or anyone else. [ 4 ] In 1975, Mr. Dejaeger met the victims TT and her brother JT. TT was six years old and JT was eight years old. They were the children of a devout Catholic family living in the Edmonton area. Mr. Dejaeger became close friends with the family and the children were often left in his care. Sometimes the children travelled with Mr. Dejaeger to religious retreats. [ 5 ] Mr. Dejaeger sexually assaulted TT over a three-year period. The sexual assaults consisted of fondling both above and below the

clothing, digital penetration, and kissing on the chest area. On at least one occasion Mr. Dejaeger removed all of his clothing and laid on top of TT. Mr. Dejaeger told TT that the activity was a secret between her, him, and God, and that if she told anyone she would go to hell. TT believed this. [ 6 ] During the same period, Mr. Dejaeger also sexually assaulted JT, a sibling of TT. The sexual assaults consisted of making JT perform oral sex on Dejaeger and making JT manually stimulate Mr. Dejaeger. Mr. Dejaeger would ejaculate into and on JT. On one occasion Mr.

Dejaeger attempted to perform oral sex on JT. [ 7 ] Mr. Dejaeger told JT not to tell anyone about what happened or he would lose his family. III. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS [ 8 ] The victim RW was given the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement and declined to do so. I am advised that RW has suffered from substance abuse issues and family issues. Unfortunately, this is typical and expected when one has been victimized, particularly as a child. [ 9 ] TT and JT did provide victim impact statements. [ 10 ] TT struggles with substance abuse and depression. She has suicidal thoughts and has attempted suicide.

She has gone for counselling, but it has proven to be both expensive and frustrating for her so she has not continued. Her first marriage failed, but fortunately she has found incredible support with her second husband. She recognizes the potential for her past to negatively impact on her son and she has done what she can to ensure this does not happen. It is hoped that the conclusion of these cases will allow her to carry on and find some peace in the future. [ 11 ] JT has struggled with his sexuality, been aggressive, and quick to react.

His relationship with his own children was affected as he was unable to be as nurturing and intimate with them as he might have otherwise been. Fortunately, JT also has a supportive spouse. He has also found counselling to be beneficial and continues to see a psychologist and psychiatrist. [ 12 ] The victims are not limited to RW, TT, and JT. TT talks about her parents and the support they have provided to her since these incidents have been disclosed.

One can only imagine the guilt they suffer from, having trusted their very young children to the care of their abuser. [ 13 ] The trauma of sexual abuse can be intergenerational. It remains to be seen if the effects will trickle down to the children of RW, TT, and JT. IV. BACKGROUND [ 14 ] It is hoped that all victims of Mr. Dejaeger have now come forward and that these cases bring to an end the criminal prosecutions flowing from a long legacy of abuse of position, abuse of power, and, most tragically, abuse of children. [ 15 ] In 1990, Mr.

Dejaeger was sentenced to five years for 8 counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault arising from Baker Lake. [ 16 ] In 1991, he was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to eight months jail and three months jail. Each sentence to be served concurrently, or at the same time, as the five-year sentence he was already serving. [ 17 ] Mr. Dejaeger was released on parole in 1992. While still on parole, he was charged with offences arising from Igloolik. He fled to

his native Belgium. It was years later, when he was returned to Canada by authorities, that he faced the Igloolik charges. In January of 2015, he was sentenced to 19 years in custody. After he was credited for the time he was in custody prior to sentencing, the remaining sentence to be served was 11 years. He is currently serving that sentence. [ 18 ] The incidents currently before the court pre-date the Baker Lake incidents and the Igloolik incidents, although the charges were laid later. [ 19 ] Mr. Dejaeger is now 69 years old and suffering from a multitude of health issues. He has been in custody since 2011.

V. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 20 ] The Crown and the Defence have put forward a joint submission on sentence. [ 21 ] They both submit that the appropriate sentence is, in relation to the two charges against RW, five years custody, and in relation to each of the charges against TT and JT, 4 to 5 years custody. [ 22 ] Both lawyers submit that these jail sentences should be served concurrently, or at the same time, as the 11-year sentence Mr. Dejaeger is currently serving. [ 23 ] The effect of this would be that there would be no additional jail time. VI. PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING A.

Generally [ 24 ] The primary sentencing principles in this matter are denunciation and deterrence. [ 25 ] As discussed when Mr. Dejaeger was sentenced on the convictions arising from Igloolik, the court must also consider the principle of totality and whether the effect of consecutive sentences will exceed the overall moral culpability of the offender.

This principle is set out in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code , which provides that when consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. [ 26 ] It is this principle of totality that has undoubtedly influenced the joint submission put forward by counsel. B.

Effect of a joint submission [ 27 ] A joint submission on sentence is often the end result of a lengthy, difficult negotiation between Crown counsel and Defence counsel. [ 28 ] I understand that this is often difficult for the public to accept or understand, and particularly so for victims who feel that such a process minimizes what has happened to them. [ 29 ] The resolution of criminal cases by way of guilty pleas and joint submissions on sentence are viewed as a necessary part of the administration of justice. There are benefits to the victims of crime, to accused persons, and to society at large.

Victims benefit by

generally a more timely resolution of cases. They are spared having to come to court to testify.

For both victims and offenders there iscertainty and finality. [30] The law is clear that a joint submission on sentence should be rejected by a judge only if the suggested sentence would bring theadministration of justice in to disrepute or would otherwise not be in the public interest. [31] The rationale for this was set out by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v GWC, 2000 ABCA 333 , 150 CCC (3d) 513 : The obligation of a trial judge to give serious consideration to a joint sentencing submission stems from an attempt to maintain a properbalance between respect for the plea bargain and the sentencing court’s role in the administration of justice.

The certainty that is requiredto induce accused persons to waive their rights to a trial can only be achieved in an atmosphere where the courts do not lightly interferewith a negotiated disposition that falls within or is very close to the appropriate range for a given offence. “The bargaining process isundermined if the resulting compromise recommendation is too readily rejected by the sentencing judge.” R. v. Pashe (MB CA), (1995), 100 Man. R. (2d) 61 at para. 11. VII. CONCLUSION [32] The joint submission put forward by counsel is reasonable.

The sentencing range for each of the individual charges is within therange and reflects the seriousness and the moral culpability of Mr. Dejaeger. [33] The submission that the sentences be served concurrently is in keeping with the totality principle and would have been the likelyoutcome had Mr.

Dejaeger been sentenced on these charges at the same time he was sentenced on the Igloolik charges. [34] On each of the four charges the sentence is five years, to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentencehe is currently serving. [35] DNA, SOIRA (Sex Offender Identification Registry Act, SC 2004, c 10) and all other ancillary orders were issued in January inrelation to the Igloolik charges and Crown is not seeking further orders. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 22nd day of October, 2015 ___________________ Justice S. Cooper Nunavut Court of Justice