R. v. Kappankunnel, 2013 ONCJ 632

Citation: R. v. Kappankunnel , 2013 ONCJ 632 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. ABRAHAM KAPPANKUNNEL PROCEEDINGS AT SENTENCING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P.T. BISHOP On July 15 th , 2013 at DRYDEN, Ontario

APPEARANCES: J. Burke Counsel for the Crown A Seib Counsel for Abraham Kappankunnel MONDAY, JULY 15, 2013 MR. SEIB: Your Honour, Mr. Kappankunnel came to St. Joseph’s Church in Dryden in, in 1993. He was transferred from the diocese in, in Thunder Bay and became the, the Father here in, in town. He presided at the church here until 1996 when his doctor recommended an extended sabbatical from work for health reasons. He applied for and was granted a, a leave of absence, which began in June of 1996.

Following that leave of absence, he traveled to India where he essentially started a, a new life and has been residing in India up until March of, of this year. While residing in India, he, he left the diocese. He has been married now for 15 years and has a, a six and a half year old Son. He was married in 1997. In 2002, Mr. Kappankunnel was a founding member of a, a society – it’s difficult for me to pronounce it - but it’s Snehakiran; it’s spelled S-N-E-H-A-K-I-R-A-N. He’s a founding member and has been a volunteer with that organization since 2002.

It’s a non-government organization established to assist children with cerebral palsy and, and their families. So Mr. Kappankunnel’s been in India and has been an active member in his community; is married, has a family. He’s a Canadian citizen residing in India as a result of, of his passport. He’s been there as a, not as a citizen or anything like that, but on an extended Visa. In October of 2012, it came to, I guess, the authority’s attention that Mr. Kappankunnel had this outstanding warrant for the 271’s, which is an indictable offense. As a result; Passport Canada suspended his passport.

He’s no longer permitted to stay in India or was informed that when that travel Visa was going to be suspended and that he’d have to return to Canada to deal with matters; Mr. Kappankunnel contacted me. Arrangements were made through Mr. Keen and through the O.P.P. here in Dryden for Mr. Kappankunnel to surrender himself in Toronto.

Originally arrangements were made for him before that to travel to, through the United States to Calgary to Winnipeg, but because of the outstanding charges, he was refused entry into the United States; had to return to India, go through the expense of re- applying for all of his travel documents. Ultimately he came to Toronto March the 18 th , was surrendered into custody, brought in custody to Dryden and I believe released on an undertaking on the 22 nd – I believe – or 21 st ; five days he spent in custody as he traveled. There have been lengthy discussions both with Mr.

Keen and Miss Schuck as to how to resolve these matters. I can indicate that there has been consultation with a, an immigration lawyer from India and that was the basis for the arrival at the 266 convictions. A conviction for a 271 would attach with it a SOIRA designation and would very likely preclude him from returning to India to reside with his family. I can indicate that the intention for Mr. Kappankunnel, is once these matters are to, are resolved, to return to India.

There’s a joint recommendation for Your Honour’s consideration; what we’re asking Your Honour to endorse, is a, a term, a suspended sentence and three years of probation concurrent on, on both counts. I can tell Your Honour that in addition to Mr.

Kappankunnel spending some time in custody, which we’re asking Your Honour not to note, this has been an embarrassment for him; it’s something that he’s had to consider for a long time, being in Canada for the last several months without his family, deciding what to do and it’s not a decision that he came to too easily, but it’s a decision he came to, to allow everybody involved in this unfortunate incident to, to move on. I’m sure you’ll hear in the couple of victim impact statements that the victims have been struggling with those incidents for many years.

It’s unfortunate that this couldn’t have been dealt with earlier, but the hope is that by Mr. Kappankunnel’s guilty pleas, which I would say are at an early stage after knowing about the charges; coming to Canada and dealing, dealing with them as, as quick as possible, the hope is that everybody can start to heal and, and move on. Subject to any questions Your Honour might have, that’s my respectful submission. THE COURT: What’s the Crown’s position? ... MR. BURKE: Well Your Honour, I think my friend has stated, Ms. Schuck came to this agreement with him and my friend has stated accurately what the position was.

It’s a joint submission and my understanding for three years probation concurrent on both charges. The terms would be, I would submit, report as directed to probation and I would ask for a term that he keep probation services apprised of his address and residency status, just so they can keep, potentially keep the persons apprised.

I would ask for no contact conditions for the complainants in this matter; so Elizabeth Lundstrom and Lisa Kooshet and, but an exception to that Your Honour, I would ask that he be required to write written letters of apology to each of them and provide that to his probation officer for review. No other terms were provided to me Your Honour, so I leave the rest to Your, Your Honour’s discretion. MR. SEIB: Your Honour, the only concern I have is with respect to the reporting condition. Perhaps report as directed until he leaves to India. I, that, those travel arrangements haven’t been made yet, but that’s....

THE COURT: Or any anticipated return to Canada or the Dryden area.

MR. SEIB: I’m, I’m comfortable with that, thank you. ... REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Bishop, J. (Orally): All right, well I find that strange; you cannot even say you are sorry for what you did? MR. KAPPANKUNNEL: Well I am really sorry; it’s almost 20 years ago, so when that, when that happened. I am really sorry and apologize to them. I, I will (inaudible), I really apologize to them. THE COURT: All right, well you breached a trust. You were a Priest; these people believed in you. It was a, it was a trust that you betrayed and it is surprising that the Bishop did not do anything about it and that it continued on.

I read in the report where one of these ladies had to go when their daughter was being confirmed and you were there and it caused a tremendous amount of anxiety, anger, angst within the local parish and you caused that by your bad criminal behaviour. You are a criminal; I have convicted you of being a criminal. I hope that these two complainants; these victims now can come to terms with this and when they see you standing in the prisoner dock, there is nothing to be afraid of from you because you are a convicted criminal.

You have assaulted them and I made the comment, it is more in the format of sexual touching; this, the context is that you were groping them, you were hugging them, you were lifting their breasts and you were thrusting your groin into their person at the time when you did this and you are very fortunate that the Crown and the defense lawyer agreed to the

section that you pled to because if you were convicted of sexual assault, there is no doubt in my mind you would be going to jail today for a long time. This happened over a long period of time. You have listened carefully I am sure to the victim impact statements; it has had a devastating affect on not just the victims, but their families, their relationship with the Church and their relationship in the community and you have taken away something that can never be given back to them. So, I accept the joint submission and I am somewhat concerned about it.

People make compromises; I am talking about the Crown and the defense and this is the compromise that they came up with. In listening to Mr. Seib, it seems like you were the victim – oh, poor you – you know, you would have to report to SOIRA; you might have to go to jail, you might have to face the consequences in India, you might not ever be able to return to Canada. Well that is the consequence of being a criminal. There is less of a consequence when you plead guilty to

section 266, but there was a sexual element to this that the court cannot ignore. So I hope that the complainants and the victims and the members of the parish who are here today take comfort from the fact that he is now a convicted criminal and he will be on probation. I will suspend the passing of sentence; put him on probation for three years. Report, keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You will provide the probation officer with your current residence in Canada and any change of address within 24 hours.

You will also advise the probation officer of any anticipated or projected return to the District of Kenora. You will write written letters of apology to these two individuals; Linda[sic] Kooshet and Elizabeth Lundstrom within 10 days and provide that to your probation officer. Is that realistic within 10 days, you can write a letter of apology? MR. KAPPANKUNNEL: Yes. THE COURT: All right, that is the normal clause, but as long as you are going to be able to comply with that and that is the sentence of the court and I hope it came home to you the tremendous damage and hurt that you caused.

Not to this, not these two victims, but the community and the parish at large. You breached their trust; you are the only one responsible, not them. All right, so you will have to see your probation officer before you leave today. All right. Reasons for judgment

Transcript Ordered: October 3 rd , 2013 Transcript Completed: November 18 th , 2013 Ordering Party Notified: November 18 th , 2013