R v. Ikalukjuak, 2022 NUCJ 23

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R v. Ikalukjuak, 2022 NUCJ 23 Date: 2022-05-27 Docket: 10-20-32-1 Registry: Iqaluit Applicant: Tommy Ikalukjuak -and- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen __________________________________________________________________ Before: Justice Mulligan Counsel (Applicant): F. Alibhai Counsel (Respondent): L. Shadley Location Heard: Pangnirtung, Nunavut Date Heard: April 25, 26 and 27, 2022 Matters: Trial reserved judgement for s.244.2(1), s.86(1) , s.88(1) , s.445(1) (a), and s.430(3) of the Criminal Code . REASONS FOR DECISION (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The accused Tommy Ikalukjuak was tried on April 25, 26 and 27, 2022 in Pangnirtung. The Crown proceeded by way of Indictment. At the conclusion of the trial I reserved judgment. The following are my verdicts on the six counts in the Indictment before me. [ 2 ] All six counts relate to events said to have occurred around 10:00 p.m. on May 19, 2020, in the vicinity of the 840-block in the Hamlet of Pangnirtung. The 840 block is a series of five linked residential two-story units. [ 3 ] The six counts are set out in the Indictment. Mr. Ikalukjuak entered a plea of not guilty to all six counts.

The Criminal Code . R.S., c.

C-34, s. 1 ( Criminal Code ) sections and a brief reference to each count provides context for the evidence heard at trial. [ 4 ] Count One (s.244.2(1)) alleges that he discharged a firearm at house 840-B knowing that or being reckless as to whether a person was inside the place. [ 5 ] Count Two (s.86(1) alleges that he used a rifle in a careless manner. [ 6 ] Count Three (s.88(1)) alleges that he carried a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. [ 7 ] Count Four (s.445(1)(a)) alleges that he killed a dog, the property of Julia Etuangat. [ 8 ] Count Five (s.430(3)) alleges that he committed mischief by damaging a skidoo with a value exceeding $5,000. [ 9 ] Count Six (s.430(3)) alleges that he committed mischief by damaging a truck with a value exceeding $5,000. [ 10 ] As noted, each of these counts relates to the events of May 19, 2020, in the vicinity of the 840-block in Pangnirtung. [ 11 ] The Crown called six witnesses: three RCMP officers stationed in the Hamlet of Pangnirtung on May 19, 2020, and three residents living in some of the residential units in the 840-block.

Mr. Ikalukjuak elected not to testify or call any evidence. [ 12 ] The Crown bears the onus of proving each and every essential element of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus never shifts to the accused, and an accused person is not required to prove his innocence. [ 13 ] I will start by reviewing the evidence of Julia Etuangat as the only witness who testified that she saw Mr. Ikalukjuak shooting a gun. [ 14 ] She is 24 years of age and resides in unit 840-C. Her cross-examination indicated she was a reluctant witness. She testified that she knew Mr. Ikalukjuak to see him.

She saw him outside with a fire extinguisher that evening and then he went inside the rear of unit 840-A and came out with a gun. She saw him shooting at the truck and once at the stairs of 840-B. The deceased dog that was found in front of the unit was hers, and it was previously healthy. She did not see her dog get shot.

[ 15 ] I found the evidence of Julia Etuangat to be credible. Indeed, her credibility was not challenged in cross-examination. I found nothing in her brief testimony that was unreliable as to her observations of Mr. Ikalukjuak that evening. [ 16 ] The first witness to see Mr. Ikalukjuak that evening was Kelly Karpik. She lived in unit 840-B with her husband James Kilabuk and their two young daughters. She testified that she had experience with guns. Her skidoo was parked near the unit’s back steps. Her aunt had been visiting and she left to drive her aunt home. When she was in the car she saw Mr.

Ikalukjuak and said he approached her and she thought she saw smoke. As Mr. Ikalukjuak approached, she was satisfied there was no fire and drove away. But when she returned home, she described the scene around the 840 block as chaotic. [ 17 ] She went inside and had an obstructed view of Mr. Ikalukjuak who was outside their backdoor. She could see his head and shoulders and upper arms. But she could not see his hands or any rifle. She saw him making a motion which indicated to her that he was loading a weapon.

He was near the back doors of 840-A and B. [ 18 ] She went back inside her unit and went upstairs with her husband and children to take shelter. She heard shots fired from what she thought was a low calibre weapon. After Mr. Ikalukjuak’s arrest she gave a statement to the police and testified she was in shock and trauma at the time. [ 19 ] As to damage she testified that there were bullet holes in her skidoo purchased a year earlier for $15,000 to $17,000. She had used it the previous weekend. It became inoperable as the result of bullet holes.

She was also shown pictures of damage to her husband’s work truck and the kitchen window. She pointed out what she thought was a bullet hole at the corner of the window that was not there before. She identified the area of the bullet hole as did two other witnesses, her husband, James Kilabuk and P.C. Marson, who took photos of the window and other items at the scene. Kelly Karpik testified that she did not see the rifle in Mr. Ikalukjuak’s hands nor did she see him shoot the rifle. [ 20 ] James Kilabuk gave evidence for the Crown. He resides at unit 840-B with his wife Kelly Karpik and their two young daughters.

After his wife left the unit around 10:00 p.m. he was home with his daughters. He stepped out for a cigarette and heard some banging noises and saw Mr. Ikalukjuak outside. He saw his face but not his hands. He rushed back into his unit and locked the door. He then heard gunshots. He looked out the kitchen window and saw Mr. Ikalukjuak with a rifle. No one else was outside that he could see. He was scared and rushed upstairs to a position of safety with his daughters. [ 21 ] He kept hearing gunshots. He heard the sound of glass breaking and the shooting of a dog. He did not see Mr.

Ikalukjuak shooting the rifle from his brief vantage point at his kitchen window. He felt safe when police arrived. He testified about the damage he observed. He testified that he saw bullet holes in his wife’s snowmobile, in his work truck, the window of the truck had been shattered and in the kitchen window frame. [ 22 ] He indicated a window frame bullet hole by locating it on a photo at Exhibit 12, page 64. He circled the two nailing holes in the frame and a third hole in the frame which he thought was a bullet hole. The exhibit also showed a small area of pressure cracks in the upper left

section of the glass. This is where his wife thought the bullet had struck. RCMP Officer Marson, who took the photograph from a distance, also thought the bullet hit the glass. I prefer the evidence of James Kilabuk as the best evidence on this point. He was a resident of the home and was employed by the local housing association in maintenance. When police arrived, he gave a statement and showed an officer the bullet hole in the window frame. [ 23 ] The Pangnirtung RCMP detachment is staffed with four officers. Constable Robbie Burke, Jonathan Sousa and Kristen Marson gave evidence at trial.

Corporal Bowles was the senior officer in the detachment. [ 24 ] Constable Burke was the first to testify. When an “active shooter” report came in all four officers assembled at the attachment to form a response plan. The officers donned their body armor and obtained carbines and a shot gun. By consensus they formed a plan about taking up various positions around the 840 residential block. [ 25 ] For trial Officer Burke obtained an aerial photo of the area (Exhibit 4) and marked several locations including positions of the officers initially, and the location of Mr. Ikalukjuak at the point of his arrest.

Officer Burke took up an elevated position from a distance. He could see the 840-block area and heard some gunshots from what he thought was a low calibre firearm.

[ 26 ] He could also see Officers Bowles and Sousa in their positions near the complex. He could hear them give commands to the suspect to drop the weapon. He saw the arrest. He then drove his vehicle closer to the scene. Mr. Ikalukjuak was placed in his vehicle and later transported to the detachment. He knew Mr. Ikalukjuak as a resident of Pangnirtung. [ 27 ] Officer Burke then participated in the search of the area and seized a firearm on the ground. The stock was wood, it was cracked and separated.

It was a 22-calibre rifle. [ 28 ] He saw a deceased dog with fresh blood, on and around it. [ 29 ] He located a 22-calibre magazine on the ground. He observed damage to the snowmobile and testified there was a hole in the plastic from a 22-calibre bullet. [ 30 ] On cross-examination he testified that he had attended prior firearm calls at the 840-block area. [ 31 ] Officer Sousa next gave evidence. He is currently stationed in Iqaluit but in May 2020 he was on general duty in Pangnirtung with three other officers stationed there.

As part of the plan formed at the detachment, he took up a position in the 840 vicinity with Corporal Bowles. He heard sounds from what he thought was a low calibre rifle. He heard four to six shots. [ 32 ] His next movements were based on a report from Officer Marson that someone was leaving the area by ATV. [ 33 ] Officer Marson gave evidence that she was in the community for a one-month relief period. Officer Sousa testified that she took up the wrong position further away from the 840-block. The report from Officer Marson that someone was leaving was unrelated to the scene at the 840-block.

But it caused Officer Sousa to leave his position of cover and head to what he thought was a mobile scene. [ 34 ] As he advanced, he faced Mr. Ikalukjuak who had a rifle in both hands, pointing down. When commanded to drop the gun Mr. Ikalukjuak raised it above his head with both hands and threw it down, smashing it on a rock. He was arrested without further incident in the front area of block 840.

Officer Sousa then joined the officers in searching the area and seizing items. [ 35 ] He gave evidence that he saw: • Bullet holes on the passenger side of the truck; • A shattered passenger side window on the truck; • Bullet holes in the skidoo; • A deceased dog in the front of the block near the point of Mr. Ikalukjuak’s arrest. [ 36 ] As far as bullets hitting the 840-B dwelling area, there were three areas that he noted. The first was the kitchen window frame brought to his attention by James Kilabuk as they walked around the scene after the arrest.

He testified that he saw a stress fracture in the upper left. The second was what he thought was a bullet hole in a plank attached to the stairs area. [ 37 ] The third was what he observed to be a skid mark on the stair railing that could have been caused by a glancing blow from a bullet.

But he allowed that this may have been pre-existing damage unrelated to the events on May 19 th . [ 38 ] But his conclusion about what he thought were bullet holes in the window area and plank area was informed by the bullet holes he saw on the side of the truck and on the skidoo. [ 39 ] The last witness to testify was Officer Marson. As noted, she was on a one-month post in Pangnirtung and was not familiar with the community. As part of the consensus plan she took up her position. As noted on the air photo (Exhibit 4) it was much farther away than planned by the other officers.

Nevertheless, she could hear shots from what she thought was a low calibre firearm. She heard the dog squeal following a shot. After the arrest she assisted with the search of the area and seized items including spent bullet casings. Exhibit 8 was an envelope containing eight such casings, some were found near the deceased dog in front of the residential block and some in the back near the stairs and truck area. Five live rounds were also seized including some in the truck. Mr.

Kilabuk advised that rounds found in the truck might have been his, he had been hunting earlier that day. [ 40 ] Officer Marson took a series of photographs marked as Exhibit 12. [ 41 ] The photographs included pictures of empty casings near the deceased dog in front, casings near the stairs at the back of the residences, damage to the skidoo, damage to the truck passenger side panel and window, and the kitchen window at unit 840-B. [ 42 ] In addition to the testimony of six witnesses, the Crown filed three documents as exhibits. [ 43 ] Exhibit 1 was a Certificate of Analysis concluding that the seized weapon, a Marlin 22-calibre long rifle was test fired and met the definition of a firearm under

section 2 of the Criminal Code . [ 44 ] Exhibit 2 was the Affidavit of firearms Officer Edwin North. No record of Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) was found for Mr. Ikalukjuak. [ 45 ] Exhibit 5 was a report to a Justice signed by Office Burke following seizure. Attached as

schedule “B” was a list of 13 items seized and collected. Among the listed items were a Marlin 22-calibre rifle, eight 22-calibre spent casing as well as live 22-calibre rounds. [ 46 ] I have reviewed the evidence of the witnesses in some detail. I can summarize the following points from the uncontroverted evidence of several witnesses: • Several shots were heard fired around the 840-block around 10:00 p.m. on May 19, 2020; • Most of the witnesses knew Mr. Ikalukjuak and were able to identify him in court; • Julia Etuangat stepped out of her residence at 840-C. She saw Mr.

Ikalukjuak come out of 840-A with a rifle. She saw him shooting at the truck and at the stairs at 840-B. She was the owner of the dog found deceased; • James Kilabuk lived at 840-B. He heard shots and saw a rifle in Mr. Ikalukjuak’s hands when he looked out the kitchen window; • When an RCMP officer Sousa approached Mr. Ikalukjuak outside the front of the 840 block Mr. Ikalukjuak had a rifle in his hands, raised it up over his head, with both hands, then threw it down – smashing it to pieces; • A 22-calibre rifle was seized at the scene together with 22-calibre casings bullets and unspent 22-calibre shells;

• A deceased dog belonging to Julia Etuangat surrounded by blood was found in front of the 840-block of residences; • A snowmobile had apparent bullet holes as did a parked truck. [ 47 ] Having heard and reviewed the Crown evidence in this case I will now turn to the six counts before the Court. With respect to each count the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of each offence. II. COUNT ONE [ 48 ] I start with Count One.

The charge reads: On or about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did intentionally discharge a firearm at a place, to wit House #840-B, knowing that or being reckless as to whether a person was in the place, contrary to

section 244.2(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 49 ] I pause to note that identity was not an issue. Those witnesses who knew Mr. Ikalukjuak were able to identify him in the dock in court when they testified. [ 50 ] Criminal Code s. 244.2(1) provides: Every person commits an offence (

a) who intentionally discharges a firearm into or at a place, knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person is present in the place; or (

b) who intentionally discharges a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person. [ 51 ] The

Section 244.2(2) defines “place” as follows:

(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), place means any building or structure — or part of one — or any motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, railway vehicle, container or trailer. [ 52 ] The essential elements of that

section as it relates to the evidence before the court can be set out as follows:

a) Was the instrument a firearm?

b) Was the residence at 840-B a “place”?

c) Did Mr. Ikalukjuak discharge the firearm?

d) Was the discharge intentional?

e) Did Mr. Ikalukjuak intentionally discharge a firearm into a place knowing or being reckless as to whether another person was present in the place?

f) Did Mr. Ikalukjuak know or was he reckless as to whether another person was in the place? A. Was the Instrument a Firearm? [ 53 ] Having heard the evidence of Officer Sousa who seized a weapon from Mr. Ikalukjuak and having reviewed the Certificate of Analysis filed as Exhibit 1, I have no doubt that the 22-calibre Marlin rifle was a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code . B. Was 840-B a “Place” Pursuant to the Definition of Place in s. 244.2(2)? [ 54 ] 840-B was part of a residential block of attached units. It was home to James and Kelly and their children. Julia Etuangat lived nearby in the same complex.

I have no doubt that unit 840-B was a place as defined by s. 244.2(2). C. Did Mr. Ikalukjuak Discharge a Firearm? [ 55 ] The evidence review indicates that several witnesses heard shots fired near the 840-block. Eight shell casings were recovered on the ground immediately after Mr. Ikalukjuak’s arrest. When he was arrested he had the rifle in his hands. Mr. Kilabuk saw the rifle in Mr. Ikalukjuak’s hands when he peeked out of his kitchen window. Julia Etuangat saw him discharge the rifle when she stepped out of her unit in the 840-block. I have no doubt that Mr.

Ikalukjuak discharged the firearm several times in the vicinity of the 840-block. D. Was the Discharge Intentional or was it Merely Accidental? [ 56 ] The evidence before the court established that several shots were heard, bullet holes were seen to the skidoo and truck. [ 57 ] Witnesses heard the dog squeal immediately after hearing a shot. Mr. Ikalukjuak was seen with the rifle in his hands. Eight casings were found in locations around the scene. I have no doubt that the discharges were not accidental. They were intentional. E. Did Mr.

Ikalukjuak intentionally discharge a firearm into a place knowing or being reckless as to whether another person was present in the place? [ 58 ] The witness Julia Etuangat saw Mr. Ikalukjuak discharge the firearm, by shooting at the truck and once at the stairs. A bullet hole was found in a board attached to the stairs. A bullet hole was found in the window casing of 840-B. Although the exact contact point in the window was not agreed upon by witnesses Kilabuk, Karpik or Constable Marson, I am satisfied that the evidence of Mr.

Kilabuk is preferred as to the exact contact point on the window frame so at least two shots were fired into a place: the window frame and the board attached to the stairs. [ 59 ] I am satisfied that there was clear evidence of several shots. Some shell casings were found near Mr. Ikalukjuak when he was arrested in front of the 840-block. Other shell casings were found in the back near the stairs where Mr. Kilabuk had seen him from the kitchen window with the firearm and where Julia Etuangat had seen him discharge the rifle at the truck and stairs.

F. Did Mr. Ikalukjuak know or was he reckless as to whether another person was in the place? [ 60 ] Mr. Kilabuk came out of 840-B and faced Mr. Ikalukjuak and quickly retreated into his own unit. He then saw Mr. Ikalukjuak holding a rifle when he looked out his kitchen window. [ 61 ] Julia also came out of her adjacent unit and saw Mr.

Ikalukjuak fire a rifle after he had gone into another unit in the 840-block and emerged with a rifle. [ 62 ] I pause to note that the word “reckless” is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as: “without thought or care for the consequences of an action.” [ 63 ] I am satisfied that Mr. Ikalukjuak knew or was reckless as to whether a person was present in the place, unit 840-B. [ 64 ] The Crown having proven the essential elements of these offences, I record a verdict of guilty to Count One. III.

COUNT TWO [ 65 ] Count Two charges that: On or about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did use a firearm, to wit a rifle, in a careless manner, contrary to Section 86(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 66 ] The Criminal Code section 86(1) sets out: 86

(1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. [ 67 ] The essential elements of this general intent offence are: (

a) The Mr. Ikalukjuak used a firearm; (

b) That Mr. Ikalukjuak used the firearm in a careless manner; and, (

c) That Mr. Ikalukjuak had no lawful excuse for the use of the firearm. [ 68 ] Much of the evidence reviewed for Count One informs me with respect to this count stemming from the same incident on May 19, 2020. [ 69 ] I have examined each element in light of the evidence and find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a) Mr. Ikalukjuak used a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code ;

b) That the use of the firearm was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the same circumstances; and,

c) That Mr. Ikalukjuak had no lawful excuse for the use of the firearm, in fact he had no license for a firearm according to Exhibit 2. V. COUNT THREE [ 70 ] Count Three charges that: On or about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did carry a weapon, to wit a rifle, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 71 ] Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code provides: 88

(1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence. [ 72 ] The elements of the offence are:

a) That Mr. Ikalukjuak possessed a weapon;

b) That Mr. Ikalukjuak knew that he possessed a weapon; and

c) That Mr. Ikalukjuak had the weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. [ 73 ] Once again I refer back to the evidence considered for Count One and the incident that occurred on May 19, 2020. [ 74 ] I have considered each element and find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) Mr. Ikalukjuak possessed a weapon; 2) That Mr. Ikalukjuak knew he possessed a weapon; and 3) That Mr. Ikalukjuak had the weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. I remind myself that Mr. Ikalukjuak shot the rifle multiple times in the area of residential block 840.

Once again, his use of the firearm was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person and dangerous to the public peace. [ 75 ] Counts 4, 5 and 6 relate to conduct that is “willful”. Willful is defined in the Criminal Code as follows:

(1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing

an act or by omitting to do

an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event. VI. COUNT FOUR [ 76 ] Count Four charges as follows: On or about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did wilfully kill a dog, the property of Julia Etuangat, contrary to Section 445(1) (a), of the Criminal Code . [ 77 ] Section 445(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code provides: 445.1

(1) Every one commits an offence who (

a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird; [ 78 ] The elements of the offence can be set out as follows:

a) Mr. Ikalukjuak’s conduct was willful;

b) Mr. Ikalukjuak’s willful conduct caused injury, in this case death, to an animal, a dog belonging to Julia Etuangat. [ 79 ] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 80 ] The dog was found deceased, with fresh blood on and around it. This took place in the front of 840 block after several shots and consequent damage had already occurred in the rear of the property at and around unit 840-B. [ 81 ] The dog belonged to Julia Etuangat and her evidence was that the dog was healthy before this event. Witnesses report hearing a dog squeal immediately before hearing a shot.

The dog received the ultimate injury, it died from the shot. I therefore conclude that Mr. Ikalukjuak’s conduct was willful. VII.

COUNT FIVE [ 82 ] The Count Five charges as follows: On about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did commit mischief by wilfully damaging a Skidoo, property of Kelly KARPIK, the value of which exceeded five thousand dollars, contrary to Section 430(3) of the Criminal Code . [ 83 ] Criminal Code section 430(3) provides as follows: 430(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five

thousand dollars (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (

b) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction . [ 84 ] The elements of the offence are:

a) That Mr. Ikalukjuak committed mischief, in this case by firing into the skidoo willfully;

b) The damage to the vehicle exceeds $5,000 in damages. [ 85 ] Once again, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the essential elements of this office beyond a reasonable doubt. The witnesses’ evidence of Mr. Ikalukjuak’s willful conduct and the firing of numerous rounds points to this conduct. The evidence of witnesses and the photographic evidence of the skidoo damage indicate bullet holes to the skidoo. I am satisfied that his shot or shots damaged the skidoo. [ 86 ] It is clear that the damage exceeded $5,000.

This was a nearly new skidoo that was operational before May 19 and was rendered inoperable by bullet holes. It was purchased by Kelly Karpik for $15,000 to $17,000. I am satisfied that the value of the damage exceeded $5,000. VIII.

COUNT SIX [ 87 ] This Count Six charges as follows: On or about the 19 th day of May 2020, at or near the Hamlet of Pangnirtung in the Territory of Nunavut, did commit mischief by wilfully damaging a vehicle, property of the Pangnirtung Housing Association, the value of which exceeded five thousand dollars, contrary to Section 430(3) of the Criminal Code . [ 88 ] I have already quoted section 430(3). The elements of the office are:

a) That Mr. Ikalukjuak committed mischief, in this case by firing into a truck possessed by Mr. Kilabuk and parked near 840-B;

b) That the damage to the truck exceeded $5,000. [ 89 ] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ikalukjuak shot into the passenger side of Mr. Kilabuk’s vehicle. Julia Etuangat witnessed his shots at the truck. Mr. Kilabuk gave evidence about the condition of his truck and the visible damage after the event. His evidence was supported by photographs taken by Officer Marson at the scene. I am satisfied that the shots caused damage to the truck. [ 90 ] The second element relates to value over $5,000.

The Crown concedes that there was no evidence of the value of this damage and requested the court to find guilt to a lesser and included offence under s. 430(4), damage of less than $5,000. [ 91 ] Section 430(4) states:

(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3), (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (

b) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. [ 92 ] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the above elements of this lesser and included offence. [ 93 ] I therefore record verdicts of guilty for Counts One to Five, and guilty for the lesser and included offence for Count Six. [ 94 ] All of the counts relate to the events of May 19, 2020 and the accused’s use of a firearm. I invite counsel to make submissions at the sentencing hearing as to the applicability of the Kienapple principles with respect to some of the counts before the Court. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 30th day of May 2022, ___________________ Justice G.M. Mulligan Nunavut Court of Justice