R. v. Soroczynski, 2021 BCPC 205

Citation: R. v. Soroczynski 2021 BCPC 205 Date: 20210826 File Nos: 43228-1 42934-1 17704-1 Registry: Campbell River Port Hardy IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. DAMIAN SOROCZYNSKI PUBLICATION BAN Pursuant to s. 486.4 (2.2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for charges outlined in Information 17704-1 REASONS FOR JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FLEWELLING Counsel for the Crown: T. Morgan Counsel for the Defendant: D. Marion, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Campbell River , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 19, 2021 Date of Judgment: August 26, 2021

Introduction and Background : [ 1 ] Damian Soroczynski is charged with a number of offences under the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] On Information 42934-1, he is charged with operating a conveyance (a sailboat) on or about June 12, 2020 while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol or a drug and while having a blood alcohol concentration that exceeded 80 mg. of alcohol in 100 ml. of blood. [ 3 ] On Information 17704-1, he is charged with sexually assaulting T.M. and touching for a sexual purpose the body of T.M., a person under the age of sixteen years, on or about June 18 to 19, 2020. [ 4 ] On Information 43228-1, he is charged with the attempt to commit the murder of K.V.D. and also with the aggravated assault of K.V.D. on or about June 2, 2021.

He was arrested and charged with these offences on June 4, 2021 and has been in custody since. I have used the victim’s initials to protect her privacy. [ 5 ] Crown seeks to revoke Mr. Soroczynski’s release on the first two charges and seeks detention respecting the most recent charges arising from events on June 2, 2021 in Campbell River. Detention is sought on both the secondary and tertiary grounds. [ 6 ] Mr. Soroczynski seeks his release. His release plan is to reside on his sailboat at the April Point Marina with his mother who would act as a surety to secure his good behaviour.

She is willing to supervise her son, is aware of her obligations, and is willing to place her own safety at risk. As counsel for Mr. Soroczynski put it, “if she sees him doing drugs or not thinking straight or he won’t comply with curfews she will call the police” and render him. The Circumstances of the Offences: [ 7 ] I will summarize the circumstances of each offence as alleged by the Crown starting with the first in time. [ 8 ] On June 12, 2020 at about 4:00 p.m., the Coastguard received a call reporting the possible impaired operation of a boat seen twelve miles north of Sayward.

The sailboat, called The Muse , was reported to be moving in an erratic manner and described as going in circles. The operator of the boat was observed slumped over the wheel with a large bottle of whiskey nearby. [ 9 ] The RCMP were able to locate The Muse with their own vessel. The operator of the sailboat, Mr. Soroczynski, exhibited a strong odour of alcohol and glassy eyes and he was arrested and brought to the detachment where he provided breath samples of 200 and 230 mg. in 100 ml. of blood. He was charged and released by the RCMP on a Promise to Appear in Court.

His case was scheduled for trial on June 5, 2021 but did not proceed due to the most recent charges and his arrest on June 4, 2021. [ 10 ] On June 20, 2020, the RCMP in Port McNeil received a call and report from a person who alleged that on or about June 18 to 19, 2020, an older male had supplied alcohol to five female youths and had inappropriately touched one of them, T.M. The police took statements from the girls including T.M., who was fourteen years old. T.M. told the police that this man had placed his hand on her buttocks and vagina and forced her to expose her breasts to him.

Two witnesses heard the man describe himself as immortal. The police located this man who was identified as Mr. Soroczynski. He was charged with the two offences of sexual assault and touching a person under sixteen years for a sexual purpose. He was released on an Undertaking to a Peace Officer which included a number of conditions including that he report to a bail supervisor, report any changes in his address to the Port McNeil RCMP detachment, not be located in the Town of Port McNeil and not be in the presence of any person under the age of eighteen or be at any public park, pool or playground.

His three day trial for these charges is scheduled to proceed on February 1, 2022. [ 11 ] On June 4, 2021, while on bail for the June 18 to 19, 2020 offence, Mr. Soroczynski was arrested and charged with the attempted murder and aggravated assault of K.V.D. which he is alleged to have committed on June 2, 2021, a little after 9:00 p.m. The Evidence: [ 12 ] At approximately 9:00 p.m, K.V.D. had just finished shopping for groceries at the Real Canadian Superstore. She left the front of the store and walked to her car with a grocery cart full of grocery bags.

She put the bags in the back hatch of her car and as she turned around to put the cart away, she saw a man standing one foot away with a knife in his right hand, raised above his head, and about to stab her. She grabbed the blade of the knife with her left hand to defend herself and gripped the blade, pushing back against the man while he tried to push the knife into her body. K.V.D. was screaming throughout this vicious attack and bystanders called 911. The man continued to try to stab her with the knife described and the two fell to the ground.

One of the witnesses described what looked like the man punching K.V.D. while on the ground. The man was not punching K.V.D. – rather he continued to try to stab her and yelled obscenities at her. [ 13 ] When the approaching sirens became audible, the man told K.V.D. to let go of the knife and when she did, he fled on foot. K.V.D. described the knife as like a large machete with a 12 inch blade and black handle. She thought she was going to die and fought for her life. The police found a machete sized scabbard in the area where the attack occurred and beside a large pool of blood.

The knife has not been recovered. [ 14 ] K.V.D. told the police that this man had a “blank look” and that his eyes looked “gone” or “screwed up” and she thought he may have been on drugs. She described the man as taller than her, about 6 feet with fair skin and a tan, stubble on his face, wearing jeans and brownish tan shoes, a hoodie that was up and maybe a maroon shirt. He looked to be possibly in his thirties. [ 15 ] There were several witnesses who saw the attack and the man flee. One witness described the man as wearing a dark hoodie, dark pants or jeans and wearing a backpack.

One witness followed the man in his truck as he was running away and prevented him from crossing Spit Road which is behind Staples. This witness saw the man go northbound behind the Staples store and other businesses and continued to follow him in his truck. He saw a small breezeway in the loading dock area and this witness described seeing the man stop

in the breezeway and peek out several times. The witness stayed in his position until police arrived. [ 16 ] K.V.D. was taken to hospital. She suffered severe injuries including a deep cutting wound to her neck, left breast and deep wounds to her left hand the latter requiring twenty stitches. [ 17 ] Several stores in the vicinity have surveillance cameras. The police were able to view those and believe they show the man who attacked K.V.D. A DVD showing portions of these separate videos running sequentially was provided to the court and I have viewed it several times.

Starting at about 7:24 p.m., the surveillance cameras and the sequential video show a man walking back and forth from the Cannabis Store at one end to the front entrance of Superstore. The first images depict a man wearing a grey ball cap, a dark coloured hoodie or jacket or jacket, dark pants and light brown shoes with a lighter coloured sole. The man had a back pack over both shoulders. The back pack is dark but has a lighter coloured fabric over what appears to be the zipper. [ 18 ] Over the next approximately hour and a half, the successive video footage shows a man walking back and forth.

The man cannot be seen clearly in some of the images, but a number of them, such as the video from Telus with time stamp 19:49:03 and 19:54:55 and the Cannabis store with time stamp 7:58:45 p.m. appear to show the same man with a grey ball cap and wearing a backpack with the distinctive light coloured fabric over the zipper. This is also seen in the first Telus video and the Cannabis store video and on that basis alone, appears to be the same man. [ 19 ] In the Cannabis store video at 7:58:50 p.m., a man wearing a grey ball cap and back pack with the distinctive zipper area is seen walking back and forth.

In this video image the jacket or hoodie he is wearing is a dark colour, likely blue, and it has lighter grey sleeves. The man’s shoes are light brown with a lighter coloured sole. At 7:59:12 p.m. to 7:59: 15 p.m. the light brown shoes are better seen as he walks towards the camera. The lighter coloured fabric seen previously around the zipper area can be seen on the front shoulder straps. Underneath the hoodie, the man is wearing a white

article of clothing which can be seen just below his neck. [ 20 ] The Cannabis store video at 8:39:21 p.m. shows a man wearing the same backpack with the light fabric on the front shoulder straps, and the light brown shoes walking towards the camera. The same white clothing is seen underneath the jacket and this time the hoodie is pulled up over a grey ball cap, the brim of which can be seen in the video. [ 21 ] The video from the Cannabis store and Telus are the best quality and it appears to show the same man throughout, walking back and forth. The video from Superstore is not the same quality.

The camera is at a farther distance and it shows a person walking back and forth in front of the store wearing dark clothing. There are a few images in which the person can be seen in profile and is wearing a backpack on his back and in some of the images a white colour can be seen under the dark jacket and at man’s neck. When I watched the Superstore video, the man can be seen walking on the sidewalk in the direction of the Rogers, Telus and Cannabis stores.

The Cannabis store video at 9:06:15 p.m. to 9:06:17 p.m. shows the same man seen in the earlier videos with the hoodie pulled up over a grey ball cap, dark hoodie with lighter grey sleeps and wearing a back pack on his back with the distinctive lighter colour over the zipper and front shoulder straps. He is seen walking away and in the same direction as previously – towards Superstore. At 21:07:59, the Telus video shows a man wearing a hoodie with the hood up, a backpack and light brown shoes walking by the front of the store in the direction of Superstore.

I note parenthetically that some of the surveillance videos use a twenty four hour clock and others a twelve hour clock and my references are to the times shown on the particular video. [ 22 ] K.V.D. is seen leaving Superstore with her grocery cart and walking into the parking lot. At about the same time, The Superstore video shows a man walking along the front of Superstore and coming from the direction of the Rogers, Telus and Cannabis stores. It is darker out compared to the earlier videos and a vehicle can be seen with its headlights on.

This man walks past the cross walk, still along the front of Superstore and as K.V.D. continues along through the parking lot toward her vehicle, the man can be seen turning to look in her direction. In profile, although the image is small, the profile appears to show that the person is wearing a backpack. The person stands there looking in K.V.D.’s direction for a few seconds and walks from behind another row of vehicles towards K.V.D. He can be seen in the video walking up to her and attacks her.

Some of the struggle can be seen although it is a considerable distance from the camera. [ 23 ] The attack is reported to have occurred at 9:07 p.m. Watching the video, it appears to me that this attack took place for an extended period of time. The man can be seen running away towards the Staples store at 9:08 p.m. [ 24 ] The next video is from the Rogers camera and a man is seen running in a direction away from Superstore and along the sidewalk. It is time stamped 21:16:39 to 21:16:44. The man appears to be wearing a light coloured ball cap and he is wearing a backpack on his back.

His right hand and arm are slightly behind him. [ 25 ] The next video is from the Telus store next door to Rogers and shows a man walking quickly in the same direction – away from Superstore. The time stamp is 21:16:53 to 21:16:59. [ 26 ] The next video in sequence is from the Riptide from 9:17:46 p.m. to 9:17:50 p.m. and it is difficult to see but a man appears to be walking in the direction of the marina. [ 27 ] This is followed by video from the Discovery Harbour Marina and the Marina North Ramp parking area and is time stamped 9:18:35 p.m. to 9:18:37 p.m.

A surveillance camera is present outside the washroom at the south end of the main dock or ramp and is time stamped 9:21:10 p.m. to 9:22:40 p.m. It shows a man enter the men’s washroom for a little over a minute and then leave. The man is wearing a dark hoodie over his head, the hoodie has light grey sleeves and he is wearing a backpack slung over his right shoulder. Distinctive light colouring around the zipper area is clearly visible. The strap over his right shoulder appears to be a lighter colour as well. This man is wearing light brown shoes with a lighter coloured sole.

When he leaves the washroom, the left shoulder strap (on the backpack) is hanging loose and the lighter colour on that strap is clear in the video. The man has a paper towel in his left hand which was not seen when he entered. [ 28 ] A few steps after the man leaves the washroom he turns right and walks down along the F dock or finger. The camera does not show the man clearly once he is a distance down the dock. Boats can be seen on either side of the F dock.

[ 29 ] A short while later, a man is seen on the same surveillance camera walking back up F dock. He turns left back onto the main ramp past the men’s washroom and walks away out of range of the camera. The man is wearing a blue and white ball cap, a blue jacket with a white coloured

article of clothing underneath. The pants are grey and he is wearing light brown shoes. There is no backpack. The man has both hands in his pocket. The time stamp on this video is 9:34:56 p.m. to 9:35:26 p.m. [ 30 ] One of the lead investigators, Cst. Mantie, spoke to an employee of the Discovery Harbour Marina. He learned that the washroom used by the man as seen on the video is only accessible with a key card. The lock is programed to record the particular key card used to access the washroom including the time.

The Marina keeps a log showing when the washroom is used and the key card number used to gain access. Cst. Mantie viewed the log which showed that on June 2, 2021 at 9:21:11 p.m., Guest 395 accessed the south men’s washroom. Guest 395 was identified as Mr. Soroczynski and his vessel, The Muse , was assigned to F38 which describes the particular Finger and slip used by him. That is the F dock or finger I referred to earlier. [ 31 ] Based on the totality of the video surveillance that evening, the timing when the man was observed and the evidence that Mr.

Soroczynski, as Guest 395 accessed the south men’s washroom close to Finger F where is boat was moored, Cst. Mantie believed that Mr. Soroczynski was the man who attacked K.V.D. The police set up surveillance and had a number of officers in position when they saw Mr. Soroczynski walking along the south ramp and through the gate to leave the marina. When Mr. Soroczynski started along the path he was arrested. This was on June 4, 2021.

He had several regular size bandages on his hands and his faced was lightly tanned. [ 32 ] A search incidental to arrest resulted in the police locating a Gerber knife still in its sheath. An exigent search was carried out on Mr. Soroczynski’s boat The Muse . During this search, without touching it, police saw a binder with a pen and paper with handwritten notes that were visible. It was photographed as some point by the police. The writings are disturbing and contain statements that “they are trying to chip and turn all humans and animals into robots…” and are “raping, torturing, and killing babies…”.

The writer describes them as “soulless demons” who “worship satan and do everything against God”. The writer refers to “witches” who are “quite litterally (sic) trying to kill me & everyone.” The writer appears to question why the writer hasn’t killed them and ends with “REPAY DEBT”. [ 33 ] At the detachment, Mr. Soroczynski’s clothes and shoes were seized and photographed. Tests confirmed the presence of blood on his belt buckle. Blood spatters were also observed on the shoes he was wearing. [ 34 ] On June 6, 2021, a search warrant was executed on The Muse .

The police found and seized the following items: • Two baseball caps; • A roll of paper towel with suspected blood; • A blue hoodie with grey sleeves and suspected blood stains on the lower end and cuff of the right sleeve; • Grey underwear with suspected blood stains; • A white T shirt with suspected blood stains; • Brown pants with suspected blood stains. [ 35 ] The shoes Mr. Soroczynski was wearing when arrested were photographed. They are a light brown lace up boat shoe with a lighter two tone rubber sole. The right shoe is stained with what the police believe is blood. Mr.

Soroczynski’s Background : [ 36 ] In reaching a decision to release or detain Mr. Soroczynski, it is important to examine his history. Mr. Soroczynski is 37 years old and has previously struggled with mental health issues. In the spring of 2013, he was involuntarily hospitalized. The previous records describe him as “hypomanic, grandiose, with a loosing (sic) of associations”. His mother and landlord were concerned and it was reported that his landlord felt threatened. He was reported to have “wanted to eliminate negativity” and felt “resistance”.

He was seen on an outpatient basis and was diagnosed as having drug induced psychosis. He was reported to have no insight into the connection between drugs and psychosis at the time. [ 37 ] Around this time, in May 2013, Mr. Soroczynski was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon and theft of a bicycle. The circumstances are important to relate. On May 5, 2013, he drove through an intersection on a red light and was involved in an accident with another vehicle. He stopped his vehicle at some point and got out.

Rather than speaking with the other driver, Mr. Soroczynski approached the driver of another vehicle and unsuccessfully tried to gain entry into it. He tried the same thing with another vehicle and then drove away in his own vehicle. His rear tire was flat and as he fled in his vehicle, the tire disintegrated, spewing smoke and eventually the vehicle was driven on the rim until it finally stopped. [ 38 ] He went into the garage in a person’s residence and took a bicycle. When he tried to flee, the owner and his brother attempted stop Mr. Soroczynski. Mr.

Soroczynski raised a stick and threatened the owner and, in the midst of still trying to get away, raised a pair of scissors in a threatening manner. The bike was recovered and he walked away. He pleaded guilty and was convicted of these offences on December 18, 2013. [ 39 ] The rest of his record includes convictions for possession of drugs - once in 2004, twice in 2007 and once in 2008. He has one conviction for failing to comply with a release undertaking in July, 2013. There are no convictions after December, 2013. [ 40 ] In September 2013, he was again admitted involuntarily for mental health reasons.

The records indicate that he was suspicious that his life was in danger, there was a subsequent suicide attempt with an overdose and self-inflicted lacerations. The medical professionals were concerned, then, as well as in November 2013, about the presence of a delusional disorder or a schizoaffective disorder. The medical records indicated that Mr. Soroczynski had limited engagement with medication to treat symptoms of psychosis,

had decreased his dosage of anti-psychotic medication and disagreed with the diagnosis. [41] On July 2, 2021, about one month after his arrest for the most recent offence, Mr. Soroczynski was admitted to the ForensicPsychiatric hospital. He was reported to be cooperative. He was reported to have no evidence of “response to internal stimuli” which Iunderstand to mean he was not hearing voices or anything of that nature. He was not a management concern. The Legal Framework: [42] Anyone accused of an offence has a right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.

Therefore the denial of bail mayonly occur in three circumstances or grounds called primary, secondary or tertiary grounds. Primary grounds refer to the need to ensurethat an accused person attends court when required to do so. That is not argued as a ground here. [43] Secondary grounds refers to the need to protect the safety of the public. [44] Lastly, detention may be ordered on tertiary (the third) grounds if release (or detention) of an accused person would underminepublic confidence in the administration of justice. [45] Counsel are agreed that because Mr.

Soroczynski was arrested for a new indictable offence while on bail for an indictableoffence (Information 17704-1), he must satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that his detention is not justified on the secondaryor tertiary grounds. [46] Secondary grounds refers to the need to protect the safety of the public. I am mindful of the statement by Lamer CJC (as he thenwas) in R. v.

Morales (1992), (SCC), 77 CCC (3d) 91 at para. 107: Bail is denied only for those who pose a "substantial likelihood" of committing an offence or interfering with the administration ofjustice, and only where this "substantial likelihood" endangers "the protection or safety of the public". Moreover, detention is justifiedonly when it is "necessary" for public safety. It is not justified where detention would merely be convenient or advantageous. [47] In R. v. Wilcox 2005 BCSC 1785, Mr.

Justice Barrow (para 22) further clarified the limits of the secondary ground by statingthat:“…bail should not be denied unless “that risk cannot be adequately addressed by the imposition of appropriate terms of release.” [48] The factors or circumstances that must be considered by a judge in assessing tertiary grounds was revisited by the Supreme Courtof Canada in R. v. St. Cloud, 2015 SCC 27.

These factors include the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the gravity of the offence,the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and whether the accused is liable for a lengthy term of imprisonment.They must be assessed individually and also cumulatively to determine if detention, or release, would undermine public confidence in theadministration of justice. [49] Detention of an accused person while awaiting a trial is the exception.

There are a number of reasons for that, including thepresumption of innocence and the fact that it is very difficult to mount a defence while incarcerated awaiting a trial. [50] In R. v. Antic, 2017 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the approach that courts should take in assessing bailapplications and, at para. 66 said this: Pre-trial custody “affects the mental, social, and physical life of the accused and his family” and may also have a “substantial impact onthe result of the trial itself”.

An accused is presumed innocent and must not find it necessary to plead guilty solely to secure his or herrelease, nor must an accused needlessly suffer on being released. Courts must respect the presumption of innocence, “a hallowedprinciple lying at the very heart of criminal law… [that] confirms our faith in humankind. [Cites Omitted] Discussion: [51] With this approach in mind, I turn to a consideration of the grounds the Crown says support an order that Mr. Soroczynski bedetained. There is overlap between the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The danger to the public if he is released and the likelihood thatappropriate conditions will reduce that risk to an acceptable level are particularly germane to both grounds. Accordingly, I assess bothgrounds with a consideration first and foremost of the risk to the public if Mr. Soroczynski is released and the proposed release plan. [52] The first and second charges Mr. Soroczynski is currently facing include allegations that he was intoxicated by alcohol.

Hisprevious medical and criminal history reflect a pattern indicating that he has struggled with drugs and mental health issues whichincluded a diagnosis in May or June 2013 of drug induced psychosis. The victim of the attack on June 2, 2021 described that the manwho attacked her was possibly affected by drugs based on her observations including the blank look in his eyes. The handwritten notesfound in Mr. Soroczynski’s boat are concerning for serious mental health issues and are the writings of a seriously disturbed individual. [53] Turning to the strength of the Crown’s case, Mr.

Soroczynski asserts that there are significant weaknesses. He points to a numberof factors. The police don’t have a confession, Mr. Soroczynski was not found in possession of the knife used in the attack, there is noconfirmation (at this time) that the apparent blood stains are human or that they are a match with the victim’s blood. His strongestargument is that the surveillance videos cannot be used to identify the man as Mr. Soroczynski. The colour of the clothing the man in thevideos is wearing is inconsistent – in some frames it appears darker or lighter depending on the camera used to capture the image.

Hesays the video from Superstore is problematic for the Crown because at times, the image of the man seen walking along the front of thestore is blocked from view by the large pillars in the front entrance. The person seen walking from the front entrance of Superstore to thevictim cannot be identified as the person seen walking back and forth in the other store videos. [54] He also says that there will be triable issues relating to the search warrant used to search The Muse and the evidence obtainedfrom the Marina about the use of the access card by Guest 395 registered to Mr.

Soroczynski and the video footage of the man seenusing the washroom that night. I take this into account in assessing the strength of the Crown’s case.

[ 55 ] At this stage, the Crown does not need to establish guilt on a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I do consider the quality and quantity of the evidence adduced by the Crown, recognizing that a case can appear much stronger at a bail hearing because it is not yet subject to cross examination or other submissions that may be made at trial regarding the admissibility of the Crown’s evidence. [ 56 ] The Crown’s evidence, at this time, is primarily based upon the surveillance videos. Crown says the surveillance video of the man at the Discovery Mall is consistent throughout and that it is the same man.

This is based on the appearance of the clothing, the light brown shoes and the backpack with distinctive lighter fabric over the zipper and front shoulder straps. Crown ties this evidence to the video of the man using the men’s washroom at the marina and says this man is wearing the same clothing, backpack and light brown shoes. According to the Crown, the man using the washroom was Mr. Soroczynski. He was arrested wearing light brown shoes which Crown says are the same shoes seen in all the videos.

Crown says they have a strong and compelling case. [ 57 ] The video from Superstore is taken at a considerable distance and the images of the man seen walking into the frame earlier and at the time of the attack are not seen as clearly as they are in the Telus and Cannabis store videos. What is particularly compelling is the consistency in the images of a man wearing a backpack and light brown shoes. Just minutes before the attack, the man seen in the earlier images is seen walking in the same direction as previously, past the Telus and Rogers stores and towards Superstore.

The backpack appears to be the same with distinctive lighter coloured fabric over the zipper and shoulder straps. The hoodie with light grey sleeves is also seen consistently throughout, as is the light or grey coloured ball cap and light brown shoes. [ 58 ] The quality of the Superstore video is problematic in that the man who attacked K.V.D. cannot be clearly identified due to the distance of the camera and I take that into consideration.

The Superstore video of the man who attacked K.V.D. shows that, in profile, he was wearing a backpack which is strikingly similar to the image of a man seen in profile running away from the direction of Superstore, past Rogers and then walking quickly by Telus – all only minutes after the attack. [ 59 ] The video images of the man using the Marina washroom show that he is wearing what appears to be the same backpack, a hoodie with lighter grey sleeves and light brown shoes with lighter coloured soles seen in the earlier images from the Cannabis, Rogers and Telus stores.

That, coupled with the evidence that the access card used to gain entry to the Marina washroom shortly after the attack was registered to Mr. Soroczynski, that after leaving the washroom the man is seen walking to Finger F where The Muse is moored and the evidence gathered during the search – the hoodie with grey sleeves and a white undershirt with suspected blood stains, coupled with the seizure of the light brown shoes with light coloured soles -- all add up to a compelling, circumstantial case against him.

The photographs taken by the police of the shoes he was wearing when arrested are strikingly similar to the shoes the man in the surveillance videos is seen wearing both before and after the attack. [ 60 ] I conclude that the Crown has a very strong case. [ 61 ] The gravity of the offence is assessed by the maximum sentences mandated by parliament and is clearly serious. If Mr.

Soroczynski is convicted of attempted murder, he is facing a life sentence; if convicted for aggravated assault, the maximum sentence is fourteen years. [ 62 ] The circumstances of this offence relevant to my assessment include the fact that this was an extremely violent, vicious attack that was life threatening. The slashing wound to the victim’s neck was close to her carotid artery which could have been fatal. The image of the man watching K.V.D. for a period of time before apparently deciding to attack her is particularly troubling. [ 63 ] If convicted of either offence on the newest charges, Mr.

Soroczynski will face a lengthy period of imprisonment. The expected range for aggravated assault, the lesser of the two charges, is up to seven years. [ 64 ] Lastly, I must consider to totality of the circumstances and not simply focus on the previously discussed circumstances. Even individuals charged with very serious offences, including murder, may be entitled to be released on bail pending trial. I consider the release plan to be an important factor in assessing whether releasing Mr. Soroczynski would undermine public confidence. [ 65 ] I conclude that if released there is a substantial likelihood that Mr.

Soroczynski would reoffend. He has a previous history of significant mental health issues including a diagnosis of drug induced psychosis and previous convictions for possession of controlled substances. I recognize that these convictions and prior psychiatric hospitalization is dated. However, the offences for which he was charged in 2020 involve allegations that he was intoxicated. The fact that he was charged for the most recent offence while on bail for another serious offence is also concerning. His mother is willing to live with Mr. Soroczynski on his boat and be his surety and willing to supervise him.

She drove across Canada to be here to support her son. I know she loves her son, but I am concerned for her safety in these circumstances and while she indicated, through counsel, that she is prepared to take that risk, I am not. She is much smaller than her son who, from my observations, appears to be much larger in build than she is. [ 66 ] I consider the fact that Mr. Soroczynski was polite and rational during his appearance in court. However, if there is an underlying substance use problem, it can be extremely difficult for someone to abstain from substances even with counselling and treatment.

In the remote past, Mr. Soroczynski was reported to have little insight into the relation between his substance use and drug induced psychosis, and reduced, on his own, his anti-psychotic medication and disagreed with the diagnosis given by medical professionals. [ 67 ] I understand that his mother wants him to have treatment. His counsel points out that while on remand, he cannot avail himself of treatment and that he has an intake appointment with Mental Health and Addictions.

Notwithstanding that he was cooperative and rational while in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital a month after the most recent offence, and during court proceeding, I have concluded that he is and remains a considerable risk to the community. In addition, the writings found in Mr. Soroczynski’s boat are very troubling and are indicative of someone who is not rational and suffering from the delusion that soulless demons want to kill humans and all life, and that witches are trying to kill him and everyone. Although it has not been established that Mr.

Soroczynski is the author of those writings, they are strikingly similar to what precipitated his involuntary hospitalization in 2013. It is concerning that during this episode in 2013, his behaviour was a danger to the community in which he was living and yet he was reported to have little insight and disagreed with his physicians’ diagnosis and treatment. [ 68 ] The release plan including the suggested condition that he only leave his boat in the company of his mother is not sufficient to

overcome this risk. He could walk away from the boat without her at any time and she could do little to stop him other than to report it to the police. That would put the community, including police officers, at risk. I would detain him on secondary grounds. [ 69 ] That does not end my assessment because, on the tertiary grounds, Crown says that releasing Mr. Soroczynski would undermine public confidence. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated, at paragraph 68 of St.

Cloud : At the end of the day, the judge can only deny bail if satisfied that in view of these factors and related circumstances, a reasonable member of the community would be satisfied that denial is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. [ 70 ] That member of the community is a person who is reasonably informed of the fundamental principles of criminal law including defences that may be available to Mr.

Soroczynski, that detention is the exception and that he has the benefit of the presumption of innocence. [ 71 ] I take into account the release plan proposed and that his mother is willing to act as surety and live with her son to monitor him. This was a violent and life threatening attack on K.V.D. Mr. Soroczynski has a prior history of serious mental health issues including psychosis and the risk to the community, if he is released, is great.

I conclude that there is a substantial likelihood that if released he would commit further offences and I am not satisfied that there are conditions that could attenuate that risk to an acceptable level. After considering the combined effect of all the circumstances, including but not limited to the four factors I have discussed, I conclude that releasing Mr. Soroczynski would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. [ 72 ] I would also detain Mr. Soroczynski on the tertiary grounds. Conclusion: [ 73 ] In conclusion, Mr. Soroczynski is detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

All forms of prior release are revoked. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge Flewelling Provincial Court of British Columbia