2010 QCCQ 13256, 2010 QCCQ 13256

R. c. Parent 2010 QCCQ 13256 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD TOWN OF COWANSVILLE Criminal and Penal Division No: 455-01-008653-077 DATE: December 8 th 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Plaintiff v.

DONNA PARENT Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The accused pled guilty on the following charges: 1. On or about December 20, 2007 in Bedford, district of Bedford, did have in her possession for the purpose of trafficking Cannabis, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 5(2)(3)

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 2. On or about December 20, 2007, district of Bedford, did have in her possession for the purpose of trafficking Methamphetamines, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 5(2)(3)

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 4. Between June 1 2006 and December 7 th 2007, in Bedford, district of Bedford, did traffic in a substance included in

Schedule II or represented to be or held out as such, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 5(1)(3)

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 5. On or about December 20, 2007 in Bedford, district of Bedford, did have in her possession for the purposes of trafficking Cannabis resin, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 5(2)(3)

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 6. Between June 1, 2006 and December 20, 2007, in Bedford, district of Bedford, did traffic in a substance included in

Schedule I or represented to be or held out as such, committing thereby the indictable offence provided by section 5(1)(3)

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. [ 2 ] According to what I was told, at the time of the event, the accused was in possession of 389 grams of cannabis resin, over 8 kilos of marihuana, one marihuana plant of about two feet and 672 pills of methamphetamine. [ 3 ] The accusations that Donna Parent is facing are very serious. They are punishable of life imprisonment. Indeed, the accused was involved in the trafficking of one very hard drug, methamphetamine. RELEVANT FACTS [ 4 ] Donna Parent obtained a judgment of separation from Claude Dalpé in 2005. At the time, she had two minor children.

According to what she pled guilty to, a little bit over a year afterwards, she started selling drug from her apartment.

She claims she did it because she got into a very difficult financial situation. [ 5 ] She sells marihuana, but also cannabis resin that she produces from marihuana brought to her either by a person by the name of "Stéphane" or possibly Chantal Boisclair, according to her son. [ 6 ] The recipe to transform marihuana leaves into cannabis resin would have been given by that "Stéphane" and both Donna Parent and her son were involved in the transformation. [ 7 ] Jonathan Dalpé, the son of the accused, is now 19 but was of minor age at the time of the offence.

He gave a written statement of the facts (exhibit S-3). [ 8 ] According to him, his mother was selling drugs since the family moved to Bedford, approximately five years earlier. She

would have increased her business in the last two years and started to sell what he called "speed" 18 months prior to her arrest. [ 9 ] He claims that his mother kept over 1 000 pills of methamphetamine that she sold at 10$ a piece. Sometimes, if she was not present when the clients were coming, he would make the sale. Three or four clients per night would come to her door for the pills. [ 10 ] Himself got involved in the transformation of marihuana into cannabis resin.

His mother was paying him substantially for his work. [ 11 ] One interesting element, is that Jonathan Dalpé claims that his mother was selling methamphetamine to Manuel Ouimet, his brother in law. [ 12 ] I can only assume that Ouimet must be his sister's husband or that he was at the time of the offence.

According to Jonathan Dalpé, then, Manuel Ouimet was a cocaine dealer who was keeping his drug in plain view in his apartment, including to his family, and was selling cocaine to satisfy his needs for methamphetamine. [ 13 ] The sister of Jonathan, Stephanie the daughter of the accused, was brought as a witness by the defence. Essentially, she claims that her mother is very helpful with her children. I find quite shocking that the accused would sell methamphetamine to the father of her beloved grandchildren.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED [ 14 ] When choosing the proper sentence, the factors to be considered should be balanced. First, I should look at mitigating factors. [ 15 ] In this case, I can only see one: the accused was never convicted for any criminal offence previously. The attorney for the accused is also claiming that I should take into consideration the fact that the accused was under strict conditions from her release in 2007. [ 16 ] Although, I acknowledge that it could be a factor in some cases, this is not the case here.

The only condition that was more demanding, in my mind, was her obligation to report to the local police station once every second week. I understand that the accused was going, with either a friend or her daughter to Cowansville every week for shopping. I suppose she was choosing that opportunity to report to the police station in front of which she was driving. [ 17 ] As for her obligation to advise the Court previously of any change of address, she advised it in July 2010, although admitting that she moved one year earlier. [ 18 ] Maybe the fact she pled guilty could be considered as mitigating.

It certainly was not at the first occasion. Also, considering the strength of the proof, I am not ready to gave much credit for such plea. [ 19 ] If I see only a few mitigating factors, I see several aggravating ones. Here are the most relevant. - One of the drugs that the accused was dealing is a highly addictive drug, a drug that is considered a hard drug. - The circumstances of the traffic are highly aggravating. First, the amount of pills involved, close to 700 found and at least a 1 000 according to her son, are very relevant.

The length of time during which the accused have been involved in drug trafficking clearly demonstrate that she was involved in trafficking on a long-term basis, and not at all accidentally. But the worst part of it, in my mind, is to involve her child of minor age into the trafficking.

This behavior of the accused is especially aggravating, indicating to say the least, values that are extremely questionable. - I also find aggravating the fact that the accused herself did not have any drug problem or dependency, trafficking strictly for profit. - She downplays her involvement and criminal responsibility: this is revealed in the presentence report, but also, in her written statement to the police, at the time of her arrest (exhibit S-4) and also during her testimony in front of me.

For example, although she did plead guilty to a count alleging that she did traffic for a period of over 18 months, she claims in Court it was only six months. - I find that her reluctance to be honest, her attempts to avoid consequences and her difficulty to tell the truth are quite revealing as to her personality. The presentence report does not dismiss the risk of similar reoffending in the future, and her behavior in Court certainly does not convince otherwise.

- Although I have insisted mostly on the presence of methamphetamine, the amount of marihuana and cannabis resin is alsoimpressive. The fact that the accused had the possession of such an inventory shows the profit potential of her "business". If, accordingto the accused, she started trafficking to get out of deep financial troubles, one can only assume that the income generated by the sale ofdrugs must have greatly changed that.

I find that she also was very cautious in not involving or giving enough information to identify herown supplier. - Finally, I find of some significance the fact that the accused was drawing Welfare checks at the same time she was peddlingdrugs. It is unquestionably clear that the accused was not declaring the amount she was getting from the drug trafficking, while cashing,months after months, precious moneys from the government that are supposed to be reserved for needy people. THE ACCUSED [20] Donna Parent was born in 1954 in the U.S.A.

She came to Canada in 1988 to marry Claude Dalpé, who was apparentlyviolent and having a drinking problem. [21] She has reached a secondary five education level and has worked at odd jobs in the past. For the last five years, at least, dueto various health conditions, the accused had not been working. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [22] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence would be of 18 months in jail. As of the defense, a sentence of 2 years less aday to be served in the community appears suitable.

I have stated in the courtroom that I do not consider myself bounded to render ajudgment that would be between these limits. The jurisprudence is also to that effect (R. c. Koenders, 2007 BCCA 378 ), etc.). PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED [23]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code establishes the principles and purposes of sentencing. I do not intend to make a list of allthe criterias to be used. [24] I believe that it is very important to address the sentencing process in a twofold way. First, it should be seen regarding itseffect towards to accused. Second, it should be seen regarding the society in general. Should the accused be separated from society, howcould we assist her into rehabilitation?

How should we deter her from committing the offence again, as well as how should we help herbecome more responsible as a member of society? [25] At the same time, we have to seek ways to deter other member of the community from committing similar offence or stronglydenounce unwanted conduct. [26] I have read a lot of decisions rendered with regard to drug trafficking, especially hard drugs (R. c. Lévesque 2009 QCCQ6580, Belzile c. R. 2009 QCCA 515, R. c. Proulx 2000 CSC 5 CanLII, R. c. Tsibidis 2009 QCCQ 15133, R. c. Prokos 500-10-001120-979CAQ, R. c. Laviolette 2009 QCCQ 13751, R. c.

Grant 1993 3 RCS 665, Gagnon c. R. (QC CA), 1998 AQ2775, R. c.Blais 2010 QCCQ 5606, R. c. Grant 2009 MBCA 9, R. c. Wainright 2008 ABCA 6, etc.). [27] The last three of these decisions are dealing directly with methamphetamine trafficking. The decision in Blais is involving alarge amount of pills, but possibly a shorter duration in the trafficking. The accused was in that case also a woman, as in this case, but,she was a heavy user of methamphetamine. She was given a total sentence of 54 months in jail, minus the time spent in pretrial custody.

I add that she admitted that she was working for a criminal organization. She had minor previous convictions. The quantity involvedwas larger then in Donna Parent's case. [28] We all know that in most of the Canadian provinces, except Quebec, the Courts have established sentencing ranges for mostoffences.

In the case of Grant and Wainright, the Courts of appeal for Manitoba and Alberta have stated, that an appropriate sentencingrange for trafficking in methamphetamine would be between 8 and 12 years and that the starting point for such offences should be threeyears in jail. [29] I am not saying that these decisions should be applied here. What I am saying is that all these decisions repeat, if need be,that methamphetamine is "as hard and as addictive a drug as cocaine or heroine" (R. c.

Grant 2009 MBCA paragraph 109) or worst (R. c.Blais 2010 QCCQ 5606, paragraph 21 to 24). [30] I cannot believe that anybody involved in the judicial system is not aware of the amount of cases involving drug use andabuse in this area. As Judges, there is not a week where we are not faced with several cases of drugs addicted criminals, increasingly onmethamphetamine. There use to be none of that drug. Not anymore. [31] It is available, cheap, easy to take and highly addictive. [32] Donna Parent chose to distribute drug in the town of Bedford.

Bedford should be known for is good setting, its architecture,its history and its nice citizens. Unfortunately, for some years now, it is also known for its drug involved criminality. [33] A clear message should be sent to people choosing to get richer by spreading that poison and by benefiting from themiserable degeneration of their fellow citizen that they should expect to pay a substantial price for it. [34] At the risk of repeating myself, I mention that I find appalling that the accused involved her son of minor age into drugtrafficking, as well as she spreaded this substance in her own family.

I believe it says a lot, about what Donna Parent is ready to do tomake money. [35] A few words about the possibility for the accused to serve the term of jail that is obviously warranted for her crime in the

community. [ 36 ] First, because the term of jail I am thinking about is not lesser than two years, that possibility cannot be considered (

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code ). [ 37 ] Second, I see no effect of such a sanction on the accused. She cannot work, or in fact, do much. Therefore, there is no possibility for her to perform any kind of community work, to even partly repay the damages she has caused to society. Also, most of the testimonies I got during the representation, were that she does not get out of her apartment, except once a week to go shopping.

Again, to order her to stay in her apartment would have no consequence on her. [ 38 ] I was not made aware that the accused spend any time in pretrial custody. [ 39 ] For all the reasons mentioned before, it appears to me that a total sentence of 30 months, on each count, to be served concurrently is appropriate and the accused is sentence accordingly. [ 40 ] In virtue of

section 109, she is prohibited from possessing any firearm other than prohibited fire arms or restricted fire arms, restricted weapons, ammunitions and explosive substances during a period of 10 years and prohibited from possessing any prohibited fire arms, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunitions for life. I order that all items seized be confiscated, except the sum of 4 000$ that will be given back to the accused (according to an agreement between the crown and the defense).

The crime victim surcharge fee applies, delay of 3 months to pay. __________________________________ Serge Champoux, J.C.Q. Me Carole Poulin Counsel for the prosecutor Me Mireille Leblanc Counsel for the Accused Date of hearing: October 8 th 2010