R. v. LeBlanc Date:, 2012 BCPC 20

Citation: R. v. LeBlanc Date: 20120109 2012 BCPC 0020 File No: 168665-2C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. RENEE CHELSEA LEBLANC RULING ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL REVOCATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M. B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: L. O'Grady Counsel for the Defendant: M. Sandhu Place of Hearing: Surrey, B.C.

Date of Hearing: December 14, 2011 Date of Judgment: January 9, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Renee Chelsea LeBlanc is before the court having pled guilty on Information 168665-C2, that between the 5th of October 2008 and the 12th of October 2009 inclusive, at or near Surrey, British Columbia, she did improperly or indecently interfere with a dead human body or human remains, contrary to s. 182 (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] That plea of guilty by Ms. LeBlanc was entered on March the 5th of 2010. She is currently on a $1,000 recognizance with a cash deposit required in that amount which was set, from what I can determine, on or about the 3rd of June 2010, pending sentence being imposed. There is a more recent document placed in the court file today, dated today's date, which I understand is a corrected version of that earlier recognizance and which Ms. LeBlanc has signed. [ 3 ] The Crown today is seeking the revocation of that bail and asks the court to impose a detention order pursuant to s. 523(2) of the Criminal Code , and relying on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10) (

c) of the Criminal Code . Section 523(2) provides that: The court, judge or justice before whom an accused is being tried, at any time, may, on cause being shown, vacate any order previously made under this Part for the interim release or detention of the accused and make any other order provided for in this Part for the detention or release of the accused until his trial is completed that the court, judge or justice considers to be warranted. [ 4 ] In essence, the Crown says Ms. LeBlanc has thwarted the efficient and prompt conclusion of this sentencing proceeding at

various stages in the process, and particularly, in the time leading up to today's hearing she has provided, the Crown says, false information to the court and failed to attend for the preparation of an updated pre-sentence report, again working against a proper conclusion of these proceedings in a timely manner. [ 5 ] The plea was entered just short of two years ago. Thereafter, the court heard evidence over several days as the Crown sought to prove an aggravating feature which was not admitted by Ms. LeBlanc.

Following evidence being heard over several days on that issue, I gave a ruling in the Crown's favour on June 23rd of 2010. Thereafter, a pre-sentence report and a psychological assessment were ordered and Ms. LeBlanc sought a psychological assessment on her own behalf. The matter moved through a number of appearances to address these reports and access to information. [ 6 ] At a late date, Ms. LeBlanc, through counsel, informed the court that she was of Métis heritage and that she wished and was entitled to a Gladue report being prepared. In addition, the court was informed that Ms. LeBlanc was pregnant.

The matter was adjourned, to allow the Gladue report to be prepared, to June 7th of 2011. On May 30th of 2011, the court received the following letter from the probation officer tasked with the preparation of the Gladue report. The letter was dated May 27th, 2011: On April 7, 2011, Ms. LeBlanc appeared in Surrey Provincial Court regarding the above-mentioned matter. The matter was adjourned until June 7, 2011 to allow the preparation of the Gladue report, of the pre-sentence report and psychological/psychiatric assessments. On April 28, 2011, Ms.

LeBlanc participated in a telephone interview with Probation Officer, Lara Holland Wouters . Ms. LeBlanc was unable to provide a sufficient interview for Probation Officer Holland Wouters to research her Aboriginal background. Probation Officer Holland Wouters scheduled another appointment on May 25, 2011, to allow Ms. LeBlanc further time to prepare the information. On May 25, 2011, Ms. LeBlanc failed to report for her pre-sentence report appointment and did not respond when contacted by phone. On May 26, 2011, Ms. LeBlanc attended the office late in the day.

She advised she had no further information for Probation Officer Holland Wouters and that she had been ill the previous day. I regret to inform the court that the requested report cannot be completed prior to sentencing. Should the court still require the report, it is respectfully requested that the matter be adjourned for a further four to six weeks to allow sufficient time for the preparation of the report. [ 7 ] Submissions, subject to the completion of the Gladue report, were heard from Crown and defence counsel.

The Crown is seeking a jail sentence in the federal range; the maximum sentence is five years incarceration. A date was then set for submissions on the Gladue report, and a subsequent date for the imposition of sentence was set, by my records, I believe, to have been the 28th of July 2011. [ 8 ] On the date set for submissions on the Gladue report which was completed June 28th, 2011, Ms. LeBlanc dismissed her counsel. The matter was then adjourned over a number of appearances into the fall of 2011 to ensure Ms.

LeBlanc was represented, if at all possible, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for a significant sentence. Mr. Sandhu has now become her counsel and has received and reviewed, I am told over previous appearances, the large quantity of material which is relevant to this matter. [ 9 ] The matter was then set finally to conclude with formal submissions on the Gladue report on December 14, 2011. Ms. LeBlanc, through her counsel, informed the court that she was pregnant.

Submissions were adjourned on December 14, 2011, by consent to today's date, and then a date to impose sentence would be set with the stage and status of her pregnancy to be considered at her appearance today, having heard submissions today on the Gladue report. [ 10 ] I ordered Ms. LeBlanc to attend for an updated pre-sentence report, bearing in mind the passage of time since the original report had been prepared and completed. Today I was informed by Crown counsel that Ms. LeBlanc was to report on December 15th to the probation officer for the preparation of the updated pre-sentence report. She did not do so.

On December 29 th , the court received a letter from the probation officer that Ms. LeBlanc had not reported nor responded to phone attempts to reach her and the report could not now be ready for today's date. (That letter is dated December 28, 2011, and it will be filed with the court record.) [ 11 ] On December 30th, Ms. LeBlanc called the probation officer, I am informed by Crown counsel, to say that she had been in hospital for two weeks and that she had given birth to a baby by "C" section; that is why she had not reported. She was told to report January 3rd of 2012; she did not report.

She was in touch on January 4th, 2012, with the probation office. She said she could not report due to the birth of the child; she was told to report on January the 6th. [ 12 ] The probation officer informed Ms. LeBlanc's social worker about the birth report which she had provided. The social worker advised that there could not have been a birth because there was a province-wide alert to hospitals to inform the Ministry if Ms. LeBlanc attended to give birth to a child, and no report of that nature had been received. [ 13 ] Crown counsel has been informed by the responsible social worker, Ms. Saini , that Ms.

LeBlanc denied to her being pregnant when they spoke on November 17th of 2011, so planning was not done respecting that pregnancy. Ms. LeBlanc's baby, now referring to the baby born in February of 2011, was apprehended at birth and is the subject, I understand, of a continuing custody order application which is underway in this courthouse today, and therefore explaining the province-wide alert which had previously been sent out respecting any subsequent pregnancy. [ 14 ] Ms. LeBlanc had informed counsel that she was carrying this current baby for the foster parents of her baby born in February of 2011.

They denied this to be the case. Ms. LeBlanc said that the child was born at Children's Hospital, that is, the child born apparently in late December of 2011. There is no record there, I am informed by Crown counsel, of this occurring, or that Ms. LeBlanc was present in the hospital for a two-week period following a "C"

section in December of 2011. [ 15 ] During appearances in the spring of 2011, Ms. LeBlanc said that she was breast-feeding her baby who had been born in or about April of 2011. In fact, the child was born and apprehended in February 2011.

[ 16 ] Mr. Sandhu , on behalf of Ms. LeBlanc, was given an opportunity on her behalf to respond to the particulars which I have set out of this recent information provided by Crown counsel, and specifically with respect to the issue revolving around the birth of a child in 2011. [ 17 ] I'm going to interrupt this for a moment. Ms. LeBlanc has left the prisoner's dock. I had her taken into custody following submissions and pending my decision on this matter.

She has now left the prisoner's dock and gone into the back, and I will stand down briefly while the sheriff determines where she is and what her situation is. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 18 ] Ms. LeBlanc is back in the prisoner's dock now and I will continue these comments. [ 19 ] As I indicated a moment ago, following submissions by Crown counsel I have given, of course, Mr. Sandhu , on behalf of Ms. LeBlanc, the opportunity to respond to confirm or provide evidence of the birth of this child in December of 2011 to Ms. LeBlanc.

No further information has been offered, and I understand that I would proceed on that basis. [ 20 ] The Crown seeks a detention order under s. 515(10 )(

c) of the Criminal Code which states: For the purpose of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds… And I will say here that the primary ground, which addresses her attendance in court, is not raised by the Crown, and generally speaking she has been present for her court appearances throughout these proceedings. The secondary ground covered by ss. (

b) which addresses concerns for the protection or safety of the public if released, again the Crown is not seeking detention on this ground. Ms. LeBlanc has a dated and unrelated criminal record and this

section is not an issue in this hearing. Subsection (

c) states, and I will just say it again in complete form: For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds: (

c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including (

i) the apparent strength of the prosecution's case, (ii) the gravity of the offence, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used… which is not in issue here, and: (iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment… Again, there is a proviso or a particular concern in respect to firearms which does not apply here. I take it and am satisfied that this is a

section which should be invoked rarely. In considering its application, I must consider the issues from the perspective of a reasonable person in the community who is properly informed about the philosophy of the legislation, and Charter values, and the circumstances of the case. [ 21 ] Here the charge is serious and it carries the potential for a significant term of imprisonment. There are features of potentially significant aggravation. The accused has pled guilty to that charge.

She has been represented throughout these proceedings by able counsel and no steps have been taken at any stage in these proceedings where her jeopardy was in issue where she has not been represented by counsel. [ 22 ] Although this is not a homicide-related charge, the community has a significant concern in seeing this serious charge dealt with fairly but also in a timely manner. I am satisfied that there is reason to conclude that Ms.

Leblanc has not been forthright with the court, and particularly has not been forthright in recent times in respect to the birth of a child, and has used obfuscation to delay the process of bringing this matter to a conclusion by the imposition of a just sentence. I am not confident that if she remains in the community she will cooperate in the conclusion of an updated pre-sentence report. [ 23 ] In all the circumstances, having considered the tertiary ground, I am satisfied a detention order is justified on that basis and she will be detained, and I will revoke all outstanding bail. (RULING CONCLUDED)