R. v. Camara, 2013 ONCJ 534

Citation: R. v. Camara , 2013 ONCJ 534 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant - and - ROBERTO CAMARA Respondent S. Ientile; R Wright, Counsel for the Crown J. Bliss, Amicus Curiae R. Camara, on his own behalf R. Libman J: - Ruling on Dangerous Offender Application 2 October 2013 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……para 1 2. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS….………………………………………..…………………………………………… ..paras 2-7 3. THE INDEX OFFENCES: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT; ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON…..………… paras 8-12 4.

OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION…….……………… paras 13-14 5. MR CAMARA GOES TO THE PENITENTIARY (April, 1995)….…….…………………………………………para 15 6. EVIDENCE OF PAROLE OFFICERS (2 August 1995- 12 October 2006)……………………………………………. 6.1 Erin Stockman………………………………………………………………………………………………………paras 16-21 6.2 Leslie Ottenhof…………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 22-37 6.3 John DeSousa……………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 38-47 7. EVIDENCE OF PENITENTIARY PSYCHOLOGISTS…………………………………………………………………………….. 7.1 Reyhan Yazar………………………..………………………………………………………………………………paras 48-55 8.

RELEASE INTO COMMUNITY WHILE ON PAROLE (13 November 2002 – 31 August 2006)……………. 8.1 Heather Revill………………………………………………………………………………………………………paras 56-73 8.2 Cathy Phillips……………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 74-79 9. PROBATION SUPERVISION (4 April 2007 – 10 January 2008)……………………………………………………….. 9.1 Marianthi Constantacopoulos……………………………………………………………………………..paras 80-90 9.2 George Armstrong…………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 91-101 10. MR. CAMARA’S ADMISSION TO NORTH YORK GENERAL HOSPITAL (9-10 January 2008) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..paras 102-106 11.

UPDATE AS TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE VICTIM OF THE INDEX OFFENCES…………………………….

11.1 Erol Sevil…………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 107-108 11.2 Dr. Wai-Ching Lam……………………………………………………………………………………..paras 109-114 12. RECENT CORRECTIONAL RECORDS (2008 – PRESENT)……….…………………………………………….para 115 12.1 Curtis Des Roches…………….………………………………………………………………………..paras 116-121 12.2 David Ruttle……………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 122-130 13. DR. WOODSIDE’S EVIDENCE………………….………………………………………………………………………..para 131 13.1 Examination in Chief…………………………………………………………………………………….…paras 132-228 13.2 Cross-examination by Mr.

Camara………………………………………………………………….paras 229-288 13.3 Cross-examination by Amicus………………………………………………………………………...paras 289-316 13.4 Further cross-examination by Mr. Camara………………………………………………..……paras 317-319 13.5 Re-examination……………………………………………………………………………………………..paras 320-323 14.

EVIDENCE OF FAMILY SUPPORT AND FRIENDS……………………………………………………………………………………. 14.1 Mary Green…………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 324-331 14.2 Jennifer Haier………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 332-346 14.3 Gaspare Perricone………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 347-359 14.4 Grace Medeiros……………………………………………………………………………………………..paras 360-371 14.5 Carol Haier……………………………………………………………………………………………………..paras 372-382 14.6 Nelia Trojko……………………………………………………………………………………………………paras 383-392 14.7 Eduarda Camara…………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 393-406 15.

CONCLUSION OF EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS………………………………………………….para 407 16. LEGAL ARGUMENT PROCEDURE…………………………………………………………………………………………….para 408 17. LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES…………………………………………………………………………………………para 409 17.1 Position of the Crown………………………………………………………………………………….… paras 410-412 17.2 Position of Amicus……………………………………………………………………………………….… paras 413-415 17.3 Position of Mr. Camara…………………………………………………………………….....……….. paras 416-418 18.

TEST FOR DANGEROUS OFFENDER DESIGNATION………………………………………………………...paras 419-422 18.1 APPLYING THE DANGEROUS OFFENDER TEST TO EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT…………………………………… 18.1.1 Section 753(1)(a)……….………………………………………………………………………………..paras 423-429 18.1.2 Section 753(1)(a)(i)……………………………………………………………………………………..paras 430-467 18.1.3 Section 753(1)(a)(ii)…………………………………………………………………………………….paras 468-496 18.2 CONCLUSION ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER TEST………………………………………………………………...para 497 19.

TEST FOR LONG-TERM OFFENDER DESIGNATION………………………………………………………...paras 498-508 19.1 APPYLYING THE LONG-TERM OFFENDER TEST TO EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT……………..paras 509-544 19.2 CONCLUSION ON LONG-TERM OFFENDER TEST…………………………………………………………………..para 545 20. SENTENCING RANGE FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT………………………………………………………..paras 546-553 20.1 APPYLING SENTENCING RANGE FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT …………………………………….paras 554-562 20.2 CONCLUSION ON SENTENCING RANGE FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT……………………………….….para 563

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………………………………….paras 564-567 22. DISPOSITION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….para 568 23. ADDITIONAL ORDERS…………………………………………………………………………………………………….paras 569- 572 24. FINAL COMMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………...paras 573- 575 25. APPENDIX A: LIST OF WITNESSES………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26. APPENDIX B: LIST OF EXHIBITS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On 19 December 2008, following a one day trial, I convicted Roberto Camara of wounding Erol Sevil, and thus committing the Criminal Code offence of aggravated assault contrary to s.268 , as well as assaulting Mr. Sevil with a weapon, a pool cue, contrary to s.267 of the Criminal Code. These offences took place on 10 January 2008.

The assault with a weapon conviction, being punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment as opposed to aggravated assault which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ punishment, was conditionally stayed due to the principle which prevents the registering of multiple convictions for the same legal wrong. Prior to sentencing, the Crown announced its intention to seek the permission of the Attorney General to launch a dangerous offender application, and to seek an assessment of Mr. Camara for such purposes.

The Attorney General`s consent to the application was filed in court on 19 January 2010, thus putting in motion these legal proceedings. What follows now are my reasons for judgment as to whether or not Mr. Camara should be declared a dangerous offender. For ease of reference in reviewing these lengthy reasons, I have first set out above an index of each of the areas I address in my judgment, and a list of all the witnesses and exhibits in these proceedings follows at the conclusion. 2.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS [ 2 ] These proceedings, as is obvious from the passage of time, have been protracted in length, as well as legally complex and most challenging. While judges do have a trial management power to control and focus the proceedings before them, the situation is not so simple where an offender such as Mr. Camara fires his trial lawyer, Mr. Bliss, at the conclusion of the trial proceedings, and then announces his intention to defend himself on a dangerous offender hearing, an extremely serious legal proceeding where the person’s liberty is at stake for potentially the rest of his life.

This then additionally requires the judge to assist and guide the unrepresented defendant so as to ensure that his defence is put forward with full force and effect, in one of the most complicated legal proceedings under the Criminal Code . Over a number of court appearances, Mr. Camara persisted in declining repeated opportunities to engage other counsel, so toward this end, I invited Mr. Bliss to act as Amicus or friend of the court at the commencement of the dangerous offender proceedings, an offer which he graciously accepted. I also indicated to Mr.

Camara that if at any time, upon further reflection, he wished to re-hire Mr. Bliss I would grant this request that he end his role as Amicus, and return to representing Mr. Camara. However, Mr. Camara declined to do so, stating that he knew himself better than anyone, and it was obvious in his opinion that he was not a dangerous person. As a result, he has been defending himself throughout the entirety of these proceedings. Accordingly, I wish to state at the outset my very great debt of gratitude to Mr.

Bliss for not walking away from his former client and, in the highest traditions of the bar, remaining involved in these proceedings as Amicus so that there would be a principled and forceful response to the Crown’s application. I should note that Mr. Bliss, as Amicus, opposed the Crown’s application, and filed a written argument of 145 pages in support of this position. He also defended Mr. Camara at trial with great skill and ability, a fact that I believe Mr. Camara has come to appreciate and understand, following his obvious disappointment at the outcome of his trial.

For the entirety of the dangerous offender proceedings, Mr. Bliss has been in regular contact with Mr. Camara at the jail, as well as his family, and personally overseen that arrangements were put in place for Mr. Camara to receive the disclosure materials and transcripts that he requested. [ 3 ] I also wish to record my appreciation to the Crown law officers, Ms. Ientile and Mr. Wright, who have acted most professionally and responsibly in accordance with their roles as officers of the court and local quasi-ministers of justice. When Mr. Camara indicated that he wished to dismiss Mr.

Bliss on the first of the eight days originally set aside to hear evidence for the dangerous offender hearing (5 October 2010), Ms. Ientile, to use her words, stated that she “would worry that if Mr. Camara is not assisted by counsel he would not be able to properly represent himself and I urge him to be represented by counsel.” Faced with the prospect of bringing a dangerous offender application against an unrepresented accused, Crown counsel have, without objection, filed in advance their positions in writing so that Mr.

Camara would be able to know the arguments he was facing, and endeavoured to locate documents and transcripts requested by Mr. Camara, particularly those relating to his 1994-1995 trial proceedings for attempted murder and aggravated assault following a New Years’ Eve shooting in a night club, an incident that has played a very major role in these proceedings, including a legal challenge by Mr.

Camara seeking to prohibit the Crown from relying on these convictions, and his adducing evidence before me questioning his trial and appeal representation, which necessitated the calling of evidence from the two lawyers who represented him almost 20 years ago, as well as reports from expert witnesses, some of which were not tendered into the evidence at those trial proceedings. Crown counsel were most instrumental in retrieving and bringing forth these documents, and indeed any others, requested by Mr. Camara. [ 4 ] The administration of justice is well served by dedicated professionals such as Ms. Ientile, Mr.

Wright and Mr. Bliss. They are role models for all legal service providers, particularly those who practice criminal law as Crown attorneys and defence counsel, respectively. [ 5 ] I also want to acknowledge the efforts of our court staff, the many clerks and reporters who have kept track of exhibits and prepared trial transcripts in a diligent and timely manner. In particular, Mr. Evangelista personally oversaw and coordinated the completion of the over 70 transcripts of evidence that have been produced. He regularly reported in writing to all the parties, including Mr.

Camara, as to the progress of transcripts, and often personally undertook the transcribing and review of others to make sure that these were available

for the parties. The dedication of Mr. Evangelista has been of immeasurable value to all us. [ 6 ] Finally, I would like to address some comments to Mr. Camara. By nature, Mr. Camara is prone to speaking in a loud manner, often with animated gestures, and sometimes impatience. In his own words, he is “hyper” at times and “stresses himself out.” Examples of this may be particularly found in Mr. Camara’s cross-examination of the Crown’s expert witness, Dr. Woodside, which lasted in excess of 10 days.

However, for the overwhelming majority of time, he has conducted himself in an exemplary way, asking thoughtful questions and making insightful legal arguments. While he has lost his temper with me on occasion, even yelling and cursing at me, and I have had to be short with him too, I want to acknowledge that Mr. Camara has been, for the vast majority of these proceedings, articulate, thoughtful, measured in tone and respectful of the process.

I remind myself that he has, through no fault of his own, been dealt some very real difficulties and challenges in life, from the very moment he came to Canada as a young child and did not recognize his parents, and then found himself being raised as one of six children by an alcoholic and abusive father, and mother who was unable to protect him, thus leading him to run away from home many times, and live on the streets of Toronto by the time he was 10 years old.

There are many obstacles he has overcome, such as teaching himself to read and write while in the jail system, when he never completed elementary school and could only previously read at a grade one level. I commend him for this achievement. I also wish to record my thanks to the members of Mr. Camara’s family, especially his brothers, who attended court on several occasions, and offered their support to him by their presence. While I know Mr.

Camara has disagreed with many of my legal rulings, and announced his intention to appeal them, as of course is his right, I do not wish to begin my ruling without acknowledging my appreciation to him for the way that he has conducted himself before me for the overwhelming majority of the time. [ 7 ] With these preliminary observations in mind, let me turn now to the incident before me, the aggravated assault and assault with weapon charges, as they form the index offences for the purposes of the dangerous offender application. 3.

THE INDEX OFFENCES: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT; ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON [ 8 ] The victim of these offences, Erol Sevil, was 72 years old and a retired chemical engineer, at the time of the incident. He went to Azzuri Sports Bar on College Street on 10 January 2008 at about 430 in the afternoon to watch a soccer game. He had gone to this establishment many times before. [ 9 ] According to Mr. Sevil, a man who I found the Crown to have proven was Mr. Camara, was standing in front of the video machine, looking at him very strangely. He was holding a pool cue in his hand. Mr.

Sevil told him not to look at him like that, saying “You’re bothering me.” He then sat down on a chair; he next noticed the man approach him from behind. Without anything being said by the other person, the victim was struck in the face from behind with the pool cue. There was only one blow, but it was struck very hard. He was “all bloodied up” to use his words, and taken to the hospital. Mr. Sevil had never seen this other man before. [ 10 ] The injuries suffered by Mr. Sevil were described as the following: his right eye injury consisted of a rupture, detached retina, and after surgery, permanent blindness.

His face was also permanently disfigured on the right side, from above his right eye down the bridge of his nose. He also suffered a fracture to the right side of his jaw, and lacerations to the top of his head. He required stitches in his right ear and above the right eye. He remained in the hospital for a few days. He was still experiencing pain in his forehead and temple by the time of the trial. These injuries are graphically depicted in the exhibit 1a-h series of photographs, tendered into evidence at both the trial and dangerous offender proceedings. [ 11 ] Although Mr.

Sevil was unable to identify his assailant, the owner of the Azzuri Sports Bar, Gaspare Perricone, did know Mr. Camara and his family. Mr. Perricone was sleeping in his office at the time of the incident. He was awoken by an employee and went downstairs to the bar to see what happened. He first noticed Mr. Sevil, who was a regular customer, and saw that he was bleeding. He asked him what happened. The victim was unable to speak due to his injuries but pointed towards another man who was sitting at a table. Mr. Perricone identified this person as the accused in court, Mr. Camara.

The witness had known the accused, who he called Roberto, for a few months, and was friends with his father. He asked him, “What happened?” Mr. Camara replied in a calm voice, “I heard some voices; I hit the man.” Mr. Perricone then told him to go, and he left. [ 12 ] Mr. Camara did not testify at trial, the nature of the defence being admissions as to his appearance at the time of his arrest around midnight on 11 January 2008, which conflicted with Mr. Perricone`s description of his hair, and the fact that there were no finger prints found on the pool cue used to strike the victim, Mr.

Sevil, that were usable for identification and comparative purposes. The submissions of defence counsel and the Crown in response may be found at pp.75-92 of the trial transcript. Counsel addressed in detail the issue of proof of identification of Mr. Camara as the man who attacked Mr. Sevil, and causing the injuries which were acknowledged to constitute a wounding for the purposes of the offence of aggravated assault. While the defence relied on the inability of Mr. Sevil to identify the man who attacked him, and Mr.

Perricone’s description of this person as having little or no hair, the Crown in turn relied on Mr. Perricone’s familiarity with Mr. Camara as supporting his admittedly inaccurate description of Mr. Camara’s hair style. My reasons for accepting the identification evidence put forward by the Crown, and hence finding Mr. Camara guilty, appear at pp. 93-108 of the trial transcript of proceedings. 4.

OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION [ 13 ] As I have noted, the dangerous offender proceedings were originally scheduled to commence on 5 October 2010, and last for eight days, but had to be adjourned when Mr. Camara informed the Court, that morning, he was discharging his trial lawyer, Mr. Bliss. The matter was then put over to provide Mr. Camara with the opportunity to reflect on his decision to proceed without legal representation, and to consider hiring another lawyer. When he declined to do so, Mr.

Bliss subsequently agreed to act as Amicus, upon representations being made to me by counsel, including the Attorney General on behalf of the Civil Law Division (27 October 2010). After a number of court appearances in the first part of 2011 where the Crown’s and Mr. Camara’s list of witnesses were vetted, and some preliminary legal issues identified, such as Mr. Camara wishing to question Mr.

Sevil as to the extent of his injuries, and his insistence that his conviction for attempted murder and assault with a weapon was a miscarriage of justice (18 April 2011), [1] the evidentiary portion of the proceedings got underway on 6 June 2011 and concluded on 19 December 2012 after the taking of evidence for more than 35 days, and several other appearances in court to address witness and legal argument scheduling. Written materials were filed by the Crown in April 2013 and Amicus in June 2013; oral submissions commenced on 11 June 2013 and concluded on 16 July 2013. Judgment was reserved

until 2 October 2013. [ 14 ] A number of document briefs have been filed on the application, these consisting of school records, Catholic CAS records, Correctional Services Canada records, Ontario Ministry of Correction Services records, probation and parole records, health care records from the federal and provincial system, including psychological reports, and the like. Dr. Woodside’s assessment and report on Mr. Camara, dated 24 October 2009, was also entered into evidence. Both the Crown and Mr.

Camara called witnesses to give evidence on the application, many of these being called during the Crown’s case either for Mr. Camara, or defence witnesses who were only available at this time, and were permitted to testify before I formally called on Mr. Camara to call any other witnesses. Mr. Camara was also given an opportunity to speak to a psychiatrist of his own choosing, either to testify or to help him prepare for Dr. Woodside’s testimony. He ultimately declined to speak to a psychiatrist or to testify on his own behalf.

He did, however, additionally call a number of family members to testify in his defence. For ease of reference, the list of the witnesses called on the dangerous offender application may be found in Appendix A; the exhibit list appears in Appendix B. 5. MR CAMARA GOES TO THE PENITENTIARY (April, 1995) [ 15 ] Mr. Camara’s attempted murder and aggravated assault convictions in 1995 for the New Year’s Eve nightclub shooting plays a central role in the dangerous offender proceedings before me.

This conviction and 12 and one-half year penitentiary sentence that was imposed for it [2] is not only the most serious one on his criminal record, but it also generated numerous contacts and reports with correctional and parole officers, prison psychologists, as well as other correctional officials following his release three times to a halfway house in Toronto. It is this conviction that also was the subject of Mr. Camara’s application challenging its admissibility, as I referred to earlier. For present purposes, I will begin by reviewing the evidence of correctional officials dealing with Mr.

Camara from the time he arrived at Millhaven Institution after being sentenced to the penitentiary, until his statutory releases to the Keele Street Correctional Centre in Toronto, followed by his supervision on probation leading up to the commission of the index offence in January, 2008. 6. EVIDENCE OF PAROLE OFFICERS (2 August 1995- 12 October 2006) 6.1 Erin Stockman [ 16 ] Erin Stockman was one of Mr. Camara’s parole officers at Millhaven Institution. She was employed there from August 1992 – October 1996. She began working as a parole officer in March 1988.

She explained that there are approximately 120 offenders who are normally housed at the maximum security side of Millhaven. Ms. Stockman was referred to a penitentiary placement report in the corrections case management file (exhibit 6, pp.358-364), which is completed at intake in order to determine the inmates’ security classification. Mr. Camara was assessed as a maximum security inmate by a case management officer on 2 August 1995.

A number of tools would be used in making this determination, such as a custody rating scale, statistical information on recidivism, as well as an assessment of substance abuse. (p.371) Following Mr. Camara’s assessment at Millhaven, he was actually classified maximum, and Millhaven was determined to be the facility where he would be placed. This classification process occurred on 25 December 1995, and Mr. Camara was assigned to Ms. Stockman’s caseload a few days later. Ms. Stockman was notified of this on 19 December 1995, and thus became Mr.

Camara’s first parole officer outside of the Millhaven assessment unit. [ 17 ] The witness reviewed all the documentation that had been collected to date, and spoke to Mr. Camara with a view to completing his correctional plan, and establishing a direction for his case and how things would unfold for him as he progressed through his sentence. She also explained that the “primary objective” is to motivate the offender to maintain the behaviour expectations necessary to earn support for a transfer to reduced security while serving sentence.

To this end, the offender would be expected to obey the rules and regulations of the institution, refrain from involvement in the institutional subculture such as drug use, participate in available programs, seek employment and make productive use of leisure time. The general rule of thumb was that after one year the offender’s progress is reviewed to see if transfer to lower security is warranted. [ 18 ] A case work record, dated 22 December 1995 (pp.337-339) sets out Ms. Stockman’s introductory interview with Mr. Camara.

She stated that he impressed as willing to follow his correctional plan; however, in discussing his offences and his offence history, he was quite defensive about it. When he was questioned about the attempted murder and aggravated assault charges, he reported that there was a lot of alcohol involved, yet he was adamant that nobody got hurt and he was unable to admit to the potential for serious harm. A follow-up interview took place on 19 January 1996. (pp.332-336) Mr. Camara reported that he was not experiencing any adjustment difficulties in the maximum security unit.

He was no longer working as a cleaner as it was discovered he had hepatitis; he was eager to start working and would like to go to school. As a result, arrangements were made for him to start school the next Monday. He also admitted to being involved in a New Year’s Eve disturbance in the jail, along with about 50 other inmates. This was treated as a minor disciplinary infraction for which he was fined $20-$25 and awarded seven days off privileges. Mr. Camara verbalized a desire to continue his incarceration without further disciplinary infractions.

As for his criminal history, he indicated that his lawyer instructed him not to say anything as his appeal would be heard in the Fall. He did mention, though, that in addition to having a problematic family background, peer association, substance abuse, education and anger management were also contributing factors. Although he stated that he did not like alcohol, he admitted that when he would drink he would go “overboard.” He was heavily intoxicated at the time of the offences and could not remember anything about that day.

He first started doing “lines” at age 13 and graduated to “the needle” from the time he was 14 – 18. Other subjects touched on were his feeling bad for “cheating” his son by not showing him a life, and being willing to give his common-law spouse of two years, Jennifer Haier, “her freedom.” [ 19 ] Following this 19 January 2006 interview, Ms. Stockman made a referral (p.331) for Mr. Camara to see the institutional psychologist, Reyhan Yazar. This was for the purpose of seeing if he would benefit from counselling to target the issue of abuse he suffered as a child. The witness also proceeded to complete Mr.

Camara’s first correctional plan, dated 31 January 1996. (pp.322-327) It sets out the program recommendations for Mr. Camara, and identifies the ones that he will be expected to participate in during his incarceration; it also identifies other objectives for him so as to earn support for a transfer to reduced security. The needs that were identified for Mr. Camara included employment, positive social interaction, substance and alcohol abuse programing, assistance in functioning in a pro-social manner in the community and assisting his desire to change his criminal behaviour.

The witness read the correctional plan to Mr. Camara in its entirety. He indicated that he had no problems with it.

[ 20 ] A subsequent casework meeting, dated 25 April 1996, (pp.318-319) involved Mr. Camara seeking assistance with an application for private family visits. Ms. Stockman assisted him in completing the application, which was in relation to his common-law spouse, Jennifer Haier, and his two and one-half year old son, Anthony. These visits typically take place for a period of 72 hours in a separate area of the institution, and a minor child is normally accompanied by the custodial parent. However, Mr. Camara was under the impression that once he applied he would be able to

schedule the visit. The witness advised him that she first needed to request an updated community assessment which would address the issues of family violence and participating in the private family visiting program. A decision would then be made on Mr. Camara’s application. A community assessment request, dated 25 April 1996, (p.316) was subsequently made to have Ms. Haier contacted. However, she was involved in a very serious motor vehicle accident in May which delayed the process. When the assessment was completed, on 28 May 1996, (exhibit 5, pp.82-85), the community parole officer was not supportive of Ms.

Haier’s participation in the private family visiting program. The reason for this was that there was a history of family violence, as Mr. Camara had assaulted Ms. Haier two years earlier, and received a sentence of 10 days’ imprisonment. Their son was a newborn at the time, and Ms. Haier described Mr. Camara as looking very angry. While he did not actually hit her, he did push her hand. There were also previous episodes of abusive behaviour.

On the other hand, she did not believe he would be abusive with her again, and had never been abusive to her children. [ 21 ] An updated correctional plan was prepared for Mr. Camara. It is dated 20 June 1996 and appears in exhibit 6, pp.305-310. The correctional plan was amended as a result of the information contained in the community assessment, that is, regarding the issue of family violence. Ms. Stockman recommended that Mr. Camara should be referred to education and treatment programs to target the issue of family violence. A progress

summary respecting the application for the proposed private family visits was also completed, effective 20 June 1996. (exhibit 5, pp.74-78) It was noted that Ms. Haier had been cleared for visits to the institution, and had visited Mr. Camara twice. When she was interviewed after her automobile accident, in late May 1996, she disclosed previous incidents of abusive conduct by Mr. Camara, although she had no concerns about participating in the private family visiting program. However, there was a telephone call by Mr. Camara to Ms. Haier on 3 June 1996 which was monitored by Ms. Stockman.

While he seemed genuinely interested in the welfare of Ms. Haier and his son, he was “generally loud and sometimes inappropriate” during the call. Afterward, Mr. Camara described this call as a “normal conversation” between the two of them. Ms. Stockman considered, though, that he had been “quite controlling and loud,” and did not think it was an appropriate conversation. In her written appraisal of 20 June 1996 (pp.79-80), she indicated her opposition to Mr. Camara’s request for private family visiting privileges until he participated in a program for family violence. She then went to communicate this to Mr.

Camara on 24 June 1996 in the security office. (exhibit 6, p.304) Two correctional officers accompanied her. After Ms. Stockman informed him of her recommendation, he yelled, “You mean I’m not getting my fucking private family visits” and swung his arm in the air in the direction of her face; he subsequently threw his copies of the report at her, and had to be subdued by the correctional officers. According to the witness, the punch stopped about two inches from her face. The force of the punch was such that she could feel the air by her face. She believed he could have made contact with her, had he wanted to.

Although Mr. Camara had never reacted violently like this before, and had previously been appropriate and compliant with her, Ms. Stockman was frightened and sufficiently concerned about his behaviour that she felt it warranted a disciplinary infraction. Mr. Camara was found guilty of a serious charge and sentenced to three days segregation. Not long after this, he was reassigned to another parole officer who was dedicated to the segregation unit. Ms. Stockman, in turn, transferred to the Kingston Penitentiary on 7 October 1996, and had no further dealings with Mr.

Camara. 6.2 Leslie Ottenhof [ 22 ] Leslie Ottenhof is the supervisor of parole officers in the intake unit at Millhaven Institution. When an offender is sentenced to the penitentiary, a series of tests and assessments are done to determine what level of security is required when the person is placed at their parent institution. An initial correctional plan is developed at the intake stage as well. Thereafter it is reviewed as programs are taken by the inmate, and progress reports and updates to the correctional plan are made.

In terms of placing the person in a minimum, medium or maximum security setting, a custody rating scale is used to measure items such as the severity of the offence, institutional adjustment, escape risk and public safety. There is also a special handling unit which provides an enhanced level of security and is used for inmates who are involved in institutional violence in maximum security and may be placed in segregation. Mr. Camara was initially placed in Millhaven, which is a maximum security unit.

He indicated a willingness to enter into programs, and requested that he not be sent to a super maximum security setting. The focus of his parole officers, then, was to “cascade down” to medium security by assessing how the inmate did after programs, look at institutional charges, and conduct a yearly review as required by policy. [ 23 ] Exhibit 5 contains pp.1-302 of the Corrections Case Management File for Mr. Camara. A progress

summary dated 16 August 1996 (pp. 3-10) was completed by the witness who was a segregation parole officer at the time. Her report recommended that Mr. Camara be transferred to the special handling unit after a couple of incidents in his maximum security unit, one of which occurred on 8 August 1996 and involved his fighting with another offender and knocking him unconscious after he kicked and punched him. The inmate also suffered a broken nose and two black eyes. The incident took place in the gym where the two men were practicing sparring, and the victim wrote a letter indicating that Mr.

Camara had not intended to harm him. (p.27). No charges were laid by the penitentiary police. On 24 June 1996 there was another incident where Mr. Camara was disrespectful and abusive towards staff, this being his parole officer Erin Stockman. This concerned Mr. Camara being told that he would not be permitted to receive private family visits with his common- law partner at the time. His response was to swing his arm in the direction of Ms. Stockman’s face and throw papers at her. He was placed in segregation for three days as punishment for an institutional charge over this incident.

As a result of these two episodes, it was felt that Mr. Camara’s behaviour was escalating with regards to impulsively acting out, and he was becoming unmanageable in the maximum security unit. He was sent to the special handling unit in Quebec. Mr. Camara was not accepted, though, and returned to Millhaven. [ 24 ] The witness was next referred to pp.303-509 of the Corrections Case Management File which is exhibit 6. At pp. 487-488 is the final transfer decision sheet which refers to the second time that Mr. Camara was sent to the special handling unit, this time in 1997.

There had been a prison uprising and he was identified as one of the participants. However, Mr. Camara had been cooperative and received one minor charge for disobeying a written rule. The case management team was of the opinion that his risk could be managed in a maximum security environment, so he was not accepted and sent back to Millhaven. A third attempt to send him to special handling in August, 1997, due to threatening behaviour against staff, was accepted and Mr. Camara was admitted for a period of at least four months. (pp.513-514)

[ 25 ] A report was generated on 25 June 1998 upon Mr. Camara returning to Millhaven from the special handling unit. (pp.477-486). It contains an update as to his correctional plan. According to this document, he was described as “a high risk/high needs offender.” (p.478) It was also noted that he had “a history of poor institutional adjustment including aggressive and assaultive behaviour towards staff and other offenders.” (p.479) [ 26 ] Mr.

Camara’s final program performance report, dated 2 November 1998, (pp.451-459) was issued for the offender substance abuse pre-release program, and as such addressed substance abuse issues. It was observed that the inmate needed to increase his awareness of the negative effect substance abuse (alcohol and drugs) has for him, and that he could reduce the risk of re-offending by remaining substance free. He did, in fact, complete the substance abuse program.

He also completed a family violence treatment program, and did quite well in it, according to the performance report (exhibit 4, pp.719-725). [ 27 ] In 1999 Mr. Camara was transferred to Joyceville, a medium security facility, but in May, 2001, he was involuntarily transferred back to Millhaven, at which time he came under Ms. Ottenhof’s caseload. There is a memo to file in relation to Mr. Camara returning from segregation. (pp.589-590) He had been placed in segregation for a fight that happened in December, 2000, when he assaulted an inmate with a weapon.

There were also previous incidents documented by the witness where it was noted he had gotten into a knife fight and stabbed an inmate, and another where an ice pick type of weapon was found in the air vents in his cell. (pp.578-585) Mr. Camara was released from segregation in April, 2001. While Mr.

Camara’s behaviour in segregation had been for the most part acceptable, and he stated that he would participate in maintenance behaviour programs, there were a number of incidents where he displayed inappropriate behaviour, such as being verbally aggressive to his parole officer, attempting to stab another inmate, and making a threatening comment about a program officer. None of these incidents resulted in institutional charges. [ 28 ] Ms. Ottenhof’s case work records of her dealings with Mr. Camara from 2 November 2001 to 25 September 2002 were entered into evidence as exhibit 7.

Her first meeting with him on 2 November 2001 concerned issues surrounding private family visits with his common-law wife, his transfer request to a medium security institution, and pending detention review, the latter being conducted about one year before the inmate’s statutory release date to determine if the person should be held past this date. When she tried to talk to him about the issue of his private family visits, he became quite agitated and hostile and got into the witness’ “personal space”. He was not willing to listen to what she had to say, and accused the service of sabotaging his relationship.

He eventually calmed down. However, he was also upset about being told that he would have to participate in a psychological assessment which was required for the detention review. He stated that he was not interested in residing in a half-way house as Correction Services Canada had ruined much of his life. He also denied having a drug or alcohol problem. As a result, he did not think these conditions were appropriate. In his opinion, if he was released back into the community with his family, he would not have any difficulties. [ 29 ] In terms of the transfer application to medium security, Ms. Ottenhof told Mr.

Camara she was not supportive when they discussed this in April, 2001. She noted that while she had been previously supportive of Mr. Camara’s request to transfer to Kent in the Pacific region where there was a psychiatric centre, he changed his mind and decided not to go. The offender had previously indicated that he wished to transfer to Kent so that he could get a “fresh start” and continue to participate in his correctional plan. [ 30 ] At a follow-up meeting in December, 2001, they discussed his need to be less confrontational and verbally aggressive. On this occasion Mr.

Camara was “quite emotional” and acknowledged that he responds verbally as a defence mechanism to keep people away when he’s being slighted or disrespected. He felt, though, that he could get a grip on his anger if he was surrounded by his family in the community. In addition, he was quite calm when the witness informed him again that she would not support his transfer request to medium security. Mr. Camara handled this very appropriately, and she told him that she would review the request in March, 2002. [ 31 ] A private family visit at Millhaven on 5 February 2002 with Jennifer Haier, Mr.

Camara’s common-law wife, as well as their son, was the subject of one of the case notes in exhibit 7. Ms. Haier decided to leave a day early, due to Mr. Camara being verbally defensive and hostile with her. [ 32 ] The Detention Interim Review mentioned by the witness appears in Exhibit 5, pp.154-168. It was completed on 15 February 2002. Mr. Camara’s statutory release date was set as 6 December 2002. His last act of violence at Millhaven had been the knife fight in December 2000, although no institutional charges resulted.

A previous fight with an inmate in July, 1999 involving golf clubs resulted in an institutional charge for fighting, but it was withdrawn. A fist fight with an inmate in April, 1998, occurred at the special handling unit, for which he was institutionally charged and found guilty. The punishment was seven days of disciplinary segregation. On 10 August 1997, Mr. Camara was institutionally charged for swinging a bag at an officer, just missing his face. This led to his being placed in segregation. The day before he had been verbally abusive with staff.

The witness noted that these August, 1997 incidents occurred shortly after Mr. Camara had returned from the special handling unit in July, 1997. Other acts of violence had taken place in August, 1996, when he knocked unconscious the inmate he fought, giving him a broken nose and black eyes, as well as the confrontation with his parole officer, Ms. Stockman, which led to an institutional charge of assault for swinging his arm in her direction. Having regard to these episodes of violence, Ms. Ottenhof recommended that Mr.

Camara remain detained, even though none of these incidents resulted in criminal charges being laid. In any event, Mr. Camara was not receptive to being released to reside at a half-way house, or to follow conditions imposed by Correctional Services Canada. [ 33 ] Mr. Camara’s appraisal for full parole, dated 13 May 2002, appears in exhibit 5, pp.132-138. His full parole eligibility date was set at one-half by the judge who sentenced him for the attempted murder and aggravated assault New Year’s Eve shootings in 1995. As a result, Mr. Camara was eligible for full parole on 5 January 2001. Ms.

Ottenhof, however, was not supportive of this application. Her appraisal sets out her concerns, including Mr. Camara not yet having completed some of the programs she felt he required, such as cognitive skills, the violence prevention maintenance program, and substance abuse, although he did complete other programs for family violence and violence prevention. In

summary, the witness did not believe Mr. Camara should be given the most liberal form of release, full parole, at this time as she thought he required structure and gradual release into the community. His risk for violent recidivism was considered to be moderately high. Ms. Ottenhof did add an addendum on 15 February 2002 (p.139), indicating that Mr. Camara was no longer opposed to residing in a half-way house, and that he would follow conditions that were imposed.

As his institutional behaviour appeared to have stabilized, there was a recommendation that he no longer be detained, and be released on statutory release instead. Ms. Ottenhof remained opposed, though, to his application for full parole. She did support his transfer application to medium security as Mr. Camara was acting as a range representative and performing positively, as she noted in her exhibit 7 entry of 27 June 2002.

Subsequently, in October, 2002, he was transferred to Joyceville before being released in December on his statutory release date. [ 34 ] The witness also requested a community strategy, dated 6 August 2002, to the parole officer regarding Mr. Camara’s statutory release to the Toronto area (exhibit 5, pp.114-123). A community strategy is a plan that is developed by the community with respect to how they will manage the offender’s risk in the community. It is a mandatory report that Ms. Ottenhof was required to send out. Since her appraisal of May, 2002, Mr.

Camara had not taken further programs, but his behaviour had stabilized, and he was now working with Reyhan Yazar on a psychological assessment. Ms. Ottenhof believed that Mr. Camara did have some insight as to his use of violence to resolve conflict, as well as the impact of drugs and alcohol being a disinhibitor on how he handled his behaviour. He wished to return to Toronto to live with his family, and upgrade his education. There were concerns that Mr. Camara required a structured setting, and that he not be in an environment where there was alcohol.

The witness’ conclusion as to his risk was that it could be managed with a very structured release, meaning residing in a half-way house with numerous conditions imposed, such as curfews, counselling, non- association with persons with criminal records, and not to abuse substances. In this manner, he would be given slow access to the community. This was the last report she wrote about Mr. Camara. [ 35 ] Ms. Ottenhof had two conversations with Mr. Camara about his parole hearing on 15 and 19 August 2002. On 19 August 2002, she spoke to Mr. Camara’s lawyer to inform him of the full parole hearing.

He had been placed in segregation by this time, due to some inappropriate comments he made to another offender. The hearing was scheduled for 29 August 2002. Mr. Camara appeared to be convinced that he was going to be released on his full parole. As a result, Ms. Ottenhof attempted to explain to him on 19 August 2002 that she was not supportive of this, and had not looked into day parole either. This caused him to become agitated, and he accused her of not being helping him with his case.

She reminded him that he had changed his mind a number of times, such as refusing to reside in a half-way house, and then agreeing to do so. They had spoken a few days earlier, on 15 August 2002, at which time Mr. Camara acknowledged that he needed to address his own issues first, before becoming a full-time father to his son. However, by their 19 August 2002 conversation, he was blaming Corrections Services Canada for causing his difficulties, and threatening to sue them and seek compensation.

The witness broke off their conversation at that point. [ 36 ] Meantime, the parole hearing was rescheduled for later in September, 2002. Mr. Camara asked to speak to Ms. Ottenhof and apologized to her on 3 September 2002, stating that when he gets frustrated he says things that he does not mean. He was polite and appropriate during this conversation. They then spoke for the final time on 25 September 2002, at which time she advised that he had been denied full parole. He handled the decision very well, and continued to be pleasant and appropriate with the witness. Mr.

Camara also stated that he now wished to pursue his transfer to Joyceville Institution; Ms. Ottenhof advised him, in turn, that she would request a community strategy to the Toronto area to address his statutory release. [ 37 ] The National Parole Board decision, dated 26 November 2002, is contained in exhibit 5, pp.86-90. This document sets out the conditions for Mr. Camara’s statutory release.

The decision lists as “special conditions” that he participate in psychological counselling, reside at a community correctional centre, take a number of counselling programs including those for anger and emotions management, as well as substance abuse relapse prevention, report the status and changes in a relationship with any females, abstain from drugs other than for prescribed medications, not enter any establishment where the primary source of income was derived from the sale of alcohol, not to associate with anyone involved in criminal activity, and, finally, abstain completely from the use of alcohol. 6.3 John DeSousa [ 38 ] John DeSousa was one of Mr.

Camara’s parole officers at the Joyceville Institution. He has been a parole officer for about 14 years and worked within Joyceville which is classified as a high medium security prison. The witness explained that one of his responsibilities is to review the correctional plan, or the road map that an offender is supposed to follow, and is made up at the assessment unit; he also reviewed the various reports about inmates that are issued during their imprisonment, such as those from psychologists, program officers and the police.

He would do this to determine the person’s “primary needs” so as to make recommendations to the community when the offender is to be released. [ 39 ] Mr. DeSousa supervised Mr. Camara from February 2003 to August 2004. The reports he wrote about him are retained on the offender management system; these are part of exhibit 4, the Corrections Case Management File (pp.600-899). On 25 February 2003 (p.874) there is a “newcomer memo to file” which is a review of Mr. Camara’s case, a sort of snapshot of “what he’s doing and why he’s here.” This also assists Mr.

DeSousa in assessing the offender’s risk levels and program requirements. In Mr. Camara’s case, he had been released from Joyceville on parole on 5 December 2002. His statutory release date was 10 July 2005 (the two-thirds mark); his warrant expiry date was 6 October 2006, this being the date that his sentence would be completed in full and no parole or further supervision could be imposed. [ 40 ] Mr. Camara was given a residency requirement at the Portsmouth Correctional Facility, a community residential facility or half-way house in Kingston, run by Corrections Canada.

However, a warrant of apprehension was issued on 16 January 2003, indicating that Mr. Camara’s parole was suspended. He had returned to the half-way house late a few times; there were also indications that his behaviour was deteriorating and he was being aggressive towards his parole officer. Ultimately his parole was revoked on 1 March 2003. There was a recommendation by the National Parole Board that he required treatment for anger management. [ 41 ] The witness completed an Assessment for Decision for Mr. Camara on 24 December 2003 (pp 835-839). This document was generated to address Mr.

Camara’s full parole review scheduled for March, 2004. The witness spoke to Mr. Camara on 7 April 2003 about the reason he had been breached on parole. However, he “got kind of aggressive” and the meeting ended with Mr. Camara being ordered to leave Mr. DeSousa’s office after the inmate warned the officer not to touch him. As a result, there had not been the opportunity to review any of the programs that the offender had taken as required in his correctional plan. This was the first time the two had met each other.

In the witness’s words, after this initial meeting, “I wasn’t feeling overly comfortable.” [ 42 ] On 23 December 2003, Mr. DeSousa approached Mr. Camara at his range, and informed him that his application to be hired as a full time laundry man on the range had been refused. His reaction was “confrontational, intimidation” and he became very defensive and made rude remarks, calling the witness “a rotten pig” in Portuguese which M. DeSousa, who also speaks Portuguese, understood. The witness then left to go to the unit office. Mr. Camara ran past the security staff and followed the unit manager into the office.

He accused

Mr. DeSousa of being a liar and angrily pointed his finger at him. Eventually he calmed down and was allowed back on the range. Mr. DeSousa decided not to charge Mr. Camara as, considering his past and present behaviour, he did not believe “this would have made any impact on the offender and appears to be the norm.” [ 43 ] According to Mr. DeSousa, when he would try to talk to Mr.

Camara about programing to help him, he would get frustrated and state, “I’m not doing it.” He did complete a family violence program and one on violence prevention in 1998, but the witness did not feel they had made much of an impact on Mr. Camara, given his record afterwards. He also took programs on improving family dynamics and cognitive skills, as well as an education program.

A progress assessment report dated 17 March 2005 (pp.769-777) indicated that he had been denied entry for the family violence high intensity program; according to the interim program performance report, he failed to complete the family violence national maintenance program due to missing two of the six maintenance sessions for which he provided no explanation (exhibit 4b). [ 44 ] Mr. Camara was also interviewed for a substance abuse maintenance program on 3 October 2003. However, he refused to participate in it. As a result, it was recommended that he be removed from the forward

schedule and re-referred after some motivational work (exhibit 4c). [ 45 ] In the offender’s assessment for decision, dated 24 December 2003, which was prepared for Mr. Camara’s full parole review scheduled for March 2004 (pp.835-839), the witness considered that while he had to be segregated for a couple of incidents due to his attitude, as opposed to violent behaviour, the incidents were not sufficiently serious to result in a transfer to another institution. He also agreed with Mr. Camara that he had not hurt anyone or got into fights while at Joyceville.

However, it was considered that due to his “negative attitude, lack of insight and confrontational behaviour,” it was evident that Mr. Camara was “not committed to rehabilitating himself.” (p.837) The report further noted “he only lasted in the community for a month before his aggressive and confrontational behaviour surfaced.” (p.838) As a result, full parole was not recommended. [ 46 ] Mr. DeSousa was also referred to his progress assessment report on Mr. Camara, dated 13 January 2004 (pp.828-834).

The author noted that the offender had not completed any programs during the review period, and questioned his sincerity in wanting to return to the community to live a normal life. He persisted in failing to acknowledge his anger control issues, low frustration level, and negative value system, even though he did demonstrate some insight by being aware that he uses violence to resolve conflict as well as when he feels threatened. The witness also agreed with Mr.

Camara that he had completed a number of programs at Millhaven prior to his transfer to Joyceville where his sentence would expire. [ 47 ] A behavioural contract subsequently issued on 30 August 2004 noted that Mr. Camara was placed in segregation due to “aggressive and intimidating behaviour directed towards staff.” (p.807) He had called a couple of the female officers, “fucking whores”. This marked the end of Mr. DeSousa’s supervision of Mr. Camara. 7. EVIDENCE OF PENITENTIARY PSYCHOLOGISTS 7.1 Reyhan Yazar [ 48 ] Reyhan Yazar is an institutional psychologist employed by Correctional Services Canada.

She also works in program development, implementation and delivery. Part of the work of an institutional psychologist is to do risk assessments as well as segregation reviews. She had some involvement with Mr. Camara during his time at Millhaven, and then when he was taking some programing while he was in custody. The witness obtained her Masters’ degree in psychology in 1972, and started working for Corrections in 1987. [ 49 ] Ms. Yazar testified as to a consultation requested by Mr. Camara’s case management officer, Ms. Stockman (exhibit 8, p.1).

There was a request whether the inmate should be referred to an outside service provider to deal with psychological issues that concerned his being abused as a youth while serving a sentence at a training school. For this reason, the witness interviewed Mr. Camara on 26 August 1996 of about two hours. He told her that he would like to speak to a counsellor about what happened to him at St. John’s training school.

The abuse he suffered there had made him become very reactive to males getting very close to him, and very angry at any form of authority; there were also indications of physical abuse at home from his father. Mr. Camara also told Ms. Yazar that he did not consider himself to be aggressive, but that he thought people interpreted him to be so because he was loud and demonstrative. [ 50 ] The witness prepared a psychological report, dated 1 May 1997, on Mr. Camara (exhibit 9, pp.1040-1043). This was the first time they met since he was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was cooperative during the interview.

One of the issues she addressed in this report was his risk for reoffending. Like all offenders who enter the correctional system, he was evaluated on the SIR scale (Statistical Inventory of Recidivism or Risk). There are five risk categories, being percentages from lowest to highest of 20, 33, 50, 60 and 66. Mr.

Camara’s score placed him at the highest risk category, meaning that he was among the 66 percent of persons who are likely to reoffend within a time frame of three to five years. [ 51 ] A final program performance report from the Violence Prevention Program was prepared on 5 November 1999. (exhibit 8, pp.64- 76) Mr. Camara had taken it in the summer of 1999.

This program had been recently developed at the time for offenders who used violence more than once or seemed “persistently violent.” It was an intensive, “high needs” program, consisting of eight meetings per week for a group of up to 12 participants who were led by two facilitators; there were 120 sessions in total. The program was divided into 10 modules which included violence awareness, anger and emotion management, conflict resolution, positive relationships and positive lifestyles, and violence prevention. In respect of Mr.

Camara’s violence risk scale (VRS), it was considered that “criminal attitudes” were one of his risk factors, given that he had a history of committing crime for gain rather than working, and he also had a history of conflict with authority.

Other concerns included his history of interpersonal aggression with people when in a situation of conflict or confrontation; emotional disinhibition, that is, his tendency of getting upset or frustrated very quickly; his limited insight into why he acted violently as he saw his role as reacting to others; his impulsiveness and tendency to react quickly without thinking about the consequences; and violent lifestyle as shown his history of violent behaviour. [ 52 ] According to the witness, Mr. Camara did very well in the Violence Prevention Program and attended almost all of the sessions.

He discussed violence in his family, and being abused by staff at the training school where he was sent; he also acknowledged his use of violence in response to challenges from others. He demonstrated some insight in this regard, but still he could not see that perhaps he was

overreacting. It was also noted that he placed some of the blame on the victims he hurt, and minimized the amount of harm that was done. He did not think he had a problem with alcohol, even though he used to be a heavy drinker when he was younger, and alcohol had played a role in the shooting offences at the nightclub for which he was sentenced to the penitentiary. In Ms. Yazar’s opinion, Mr.

Camara was a “very engaged, interested group member.” His long term goals were to stay crime free, get a job and take care of his son; his action plan was to be “less angry and less aggressive.” It seemed that he was very motivated to change. Ms. Yazar’s overall assessment of Mr. Camara was that there was “some improvement” in his ability to manage his anger and impulsivity, but the test results indicated that he had “more work” to do on both these areas. [ 53 ] Mr. Camara was also given an outside referral for a psychological assessment to determine if he had a learning disability.

This report, dated 17 June 2002, is in exhibit 8, pp.90-92. According to the test results, his verbal intelligence was within the average range, although he had difficulty in processing information. His reading skills were at the grade five equivalent level; his spelling and arithmetic skills were at the grade two and grade four equivalent levels respectively. He also had very poor short-term memory. It was thought that Mr. Camara would benefit from individual assistance, rather than being placed in a group learning setting where he would likely be overwhelmed with frustration. The author also noted that Mr.

Camara’s true level of intelligence was quite likely significantly higher than the “average” range reflected by formal structured testing, and that he was a “very adept individual with considerable ‘street sense.’” [ 54 ] An assessment regarding drug testing was conducted on 29 August 2000. (exhibit 8, pp.86-87) Offenders are asked to provide urine samples which are then tested by a lab to determine if the person is using drugs or alcohol. However, Mr. Camara was unable to provide a sample, stating that he had difficulty doing so when he was being watched, and made reference to his experiences at training school.

He was referred to psychology as a result. [ 55 ] Finally, Ms. Yazar was referred to her report of 15 February 2002 (pp.20-27), a psychological risk assessment for the purposes of detention review by the parole board, which is to determine whether the offender should be detained past his statutory release date. She interviewed Mr. Camara twice for this report. The first time they spoke he was “fairly upset and angry and emotional” as he felt it was unfair that that Correctional Services was considering detaining him, rather than letting him go free.

He became “very emotional, very verbal” when she brought up the possibility of detention. He was very angry. He also did not like the idea of residing at a half-way house, stating that it would take away from time with his son. He was also “not too crazy about taking programs” but stated that if he was transferred to lower security he would do so. The interview did not end well as Mr. Camara was still fairly agitated and upset at that point. By the time of their second interview, though, he remained upset but had calmed down and was more reasonable.

His behaviour was appropriate; he apologized for venting during the previous interview. He was open to staying at a half-way house in Oshawa which would be convenient for him and his family. In the witness’ opinion, Mr. Camara seemed to have “gone backwards a bit” from the end of his programs, and was back to blaming others for his interpersonal aggression. He was becoming frustrated and angry and acting out. Ms. Yazar believed that he presented as a moderate to moderately high risk to reoffend upon release.

In order to reduce this risk, she believed that he needed to take further programs for cognitive skills and anger and emotions control. A non-drinking condition was also required, in her opinion. 8. RELEASE INTO COMMUNITY WHILE ON PAROLE (13 November 2002 – 31 August 2006) 8.1 Heather Revill [ 56 ] Heather Revill is employed at the Keele Community Correctional Centre (Keele Street) in Toronto which is a federal half-way house as well as a parole office. She has worked as a federal parole officer since March, 1999, and has a Masters’ degree in Criminology.

Her primary area of responsibility is working with high risk, high needs offenders, statutory release with residency cases, and long term supervision orders with residency imposed. She explained that the Keele Community Correctional Centre can house 40 residents. They are all double rooms, except for one which is for significant mental health cases, and it is supervised around the clock by correctional officers and core commissionaires. The second floor is the halfway house; the parole office is on the same floor adjacent to it. There are both parole and correctional officers on site.

The latter, however, are not armed, and primarily serve for patrolling, searching, urinalysis collection, and observation. The majority of their role at present is accompanying and escorting long-term offenders in the community. The doors at Keele Street are not locked, and a sign-in system is in place. [ 57 ] The witness was Mr. Camara’s direct supervisor on two occasions when he was a resident at Keele Street, and was involved with his file two other times when he stayed there. A case record log of the interactions with Mr. Camara while he was a resident at Keele Street is exhibit 10.

It spans the time period of 13 November 2002 – 31 August 2006. [ 58 ] Prior to Mr. Camara’s stay at the Keele Community Correctional Centre, he was first released to another half-way house in Portsmouth to begin his statutory release on 5 December 2002. There had been a residency consent letter required by Correctional Services, setting out the rationale why residency was being requested or considered (exhibit 9, p.918) Mr.

Camara’s statutory release certificate issued by the National Parole Board, dated 19 December 2002, did, in fact, impose a requirement that he reside at a community correctional centre, as well as other conditions such as taking counselling for anger and emotion management, and substance abuse relapse prevention. (p.920) Ms. Revill reviewed the release certificate, which was also signed by Mr. Camara. He was transferred to Keele Street on 18 December 2002. His warrant expiry date was 6 October 2006. [ 59 ] Mr.

Camara’s first stay at Keele Street lasted from 18 December 2002 until it was terminated on 16 January 2003. Ms. Revill was his direct supervisor. Their initial interview was on 19 December 2002. The witness felt that he had minimized his index offence by commenting that everyone has gotten drunk on New Year’s Eve. He was also very frustrated and upset about the imposition of the special condition of residency as he did not feel that he should be at a half-way house. Ms.

Revill recalled that he became very agitated, rocking back and forth in his chair, lifting himself up from the chair, clenching and unclenching his fists. He was talking in an agitated, emotional, angry fashion. He felt that he had completed his sentence, and that his main focus on release was to secure employment and to spend time with his son. The witness explained to him, though, he was subject to the special condition of residency imposed by the National Parole Board, and that it would be enforced. In cross-examination, she acknowledged to Mr. Bliss that Mr.

Camara was in very close proximity to her during this interview, and did not act in a violent manner towards her.

[ 60 ] On 20 December 2002, Ms. Revill again spoke with Mr. Camara. He was still expressing dissatisfaction with his residency condition and was extremely argumentative. She told him that a community assessment would be completed to review this condition. In the meantime, he was allowed to attend his son’s hockey games, and was given a Christmas Day pass to spend with his family. The result of the assessment was a recommendation to continue the residency term, given his index offence, his problematic institutional history, and his need for correctional programing. Ms. Revill advised Mr.

Camara of this on 2 January 2003. His reaction was to become upset and verbally aggressive as he began blaming Correctional Services Canada for his actions. There was no violence or threats directed towards the witness, though, despite Mr. Camara’s angry state. He denied committing the offence, noting that the police did not find gun powder residue on him, and that the witnesses could not positively identify him. Subsequently, the two met on 9 January 2003 when Mr. Camara was frustrated and complaining about his 7p.m. curfew, leading the witness to increase it to 8p.m.

He continued to complain and stated that he should be returned to jail as he was being treated like an animal. During this conversation, he also indicated that he attended strip clubs as he believed he was permitted to do so as his special condition not to go to establishments where the primary source of income was derived from the sale of alcohol applied to nightclubs or bars only. After reviewing the matter with her supervisor, Ms. Revill determined that his risk was manageable in the community.

The Assessment for Decision to this effect, dated 13 January 2003, is exhibit 10a. [ 61 ] The witness attempted to assist Mr. Camara find employment. He advised her that he would walk around Toronto and go into stores and talk to people. She was concerned with the lack of structure in his employment search and contacted an employment counsellor to request an appointment. Mr. Camara appeared interested. She accompanied him to the first meeting on 15 January 2003. En route to the appointment, Mr. Camara began discussing his index offence and became aggressive and very loud.

She advised him that they had already had a discussion about the matter and there was no need to speak further about. By the time they arrived to see the employment counsellor, he was polite and quiet. Mr. Camara advised that he was interested in returning to school, and felt that working one-on-one would best benefit him. He stated that he was interested in starting his own business for cleaning newly constructed homes. [ 62 ] Following the meeting with the employment counsellor, Ms. Revill drove Mr. Camara to a home visit with his common-law wife, Ms. Haier, at 11a.m. His demeanor in the car seemed fine. Ms.

Haier was present with her mother and their son. Initially the meeting went well. However, Mr. Camara seemed nervous and very watchful of Ms. Revill’s conversation with Ms. Haier as he would not sit down in the small living room, and stood against a wall watching. It was just a very general discussion of his conditions, access to visiting with his son. She asked Ms. Haier how to communicate with Mr. Camara as she was having difficulty with their adversarial conflict. As Ms.

Haier tried to explain that he had trouble controlling his anger, he got very upset and started calling her a “fucking bitch” and “fucking liar.” He continued to yell at her and then lunged at Ms. Haier, mimicking that he was going to strike her with the back of his hand. Ms. Haier yelled at him in response. The witness told Mr. Camara to leave the interview and go outside to calm down. Ms. Haier began to cry about her treatment by him, their relationship and their arguments. A couple of minutes later, Mr. Camara knocked on the door and asked to return as he had calmed down.

However, within a few minutes he again became “very, very angry” and accused his common-law wife of lying to him about wanting to get back together. He got within six inches of her, and then turned his back on her; with his fist clenched he said, “I could fucking punch her.” He was predominantly swearing at her. As a result, Ms. Revill again ordered him to go outside. She apologized to Ms. Haier and left. Before doing so, Ms. Haier’s mother explained this was how the two of them normally communicated. The meeting had lasted less than a half hour. During the ride back in the car, Mr.

Camara “deescalated very quickly.” He realized that he needed help as he was having problems with his anger. He was frustrated over not being with his son growing up. When they arrived back at Keele Street he was grounded and directed to remain at the centre. It was decided after speaking with her supervisor, Cathy Phillips, that Mr. Camara should have a new special condition not to have contact with Ms. Haier, and he was warned that he had been very close to having his community release suspended. He acknowledged that he knew his actions were wrong. [ 63 ] Shortly after this conversation, Mr.

Camara asked if his curfew could be increased to 9p.m. Ms. Revill replied that due to his conduct earlier that day it would not be increased. He became upset and started shouting; he then left her office. This led to another discussion with Ms. Phillips. It was decided that it was just a continuation of the same behaviour, and a disciplinary interview was required in order to reiterate the seriousness of his conduct and the expectations of how he would act in the future. The meeting took place on the same date, 15 January 2003. Mr. Camara was very quiet at that meeting. It was clear that he was angry.

He did advise that he understood although he disagreed that his curfew would not be increased. He was also advised that the next day he would be having a meeting with the psychologist, Dr. Wilson. The appointment was scheduled for 11a.m. However, Mr. Camara signed out of the centre that morning until noon, although he returned back a few minutes before 11a.m. The witness commented that she thought he was purposely trying to avoid the meeting. He became very upset, very agitated. He continued arguing while they were in the waiting room. Ms. Revill reminded him that his risk had to be manageable in the community.

This comment seemed to really upset him. He stood up and started shouting at her. He said, “If you don’t think I’m manageable, fucking send me back. Send me back to jail.” His conduct was so loud and aggressive that other staff came to the waiting room to see what was going on. The witness told him that she was going to step out; Mr. Camara remained in the waiting room, pacing back and forth. After consulting her supervisor, it was decided that his anger and aggressiveness was not manageable in the community and that a warrant for his arrest would be issued.

He was apprehended at Keele Street within an hour, that same day, 16 January 2003. [ 64 ] There was a post-suspension interview with Mr. Camara at the Toronto West Detention Centre. This interview is required following a suspension. He readily advised that his actions were inappropriate, both to Ms. Haier and Ms. Revill.

He also agreed that he needed help as he had difficulty expressing himself and becomes defensive and frustrated in his communication style; he also stated that he was having difficulty adjusting to the community after his lengthy period of incarceration, as well as having difficulty establishing a relationship with his son. Ms. Revill thought he was genuine and insightful. He was not aggressive. He requested another opportunity to be re-released to the community. A conference was held on 23 January 2003 to review Mr. Camara’s behaviour. It was decided to recommend the revocation of his statutory release.

When he was told the result that same day over the telephone, and that he would be returning to Kingston as a result, he again became very upset. He took back the positive comments he had made earlier during the post- suspension interview, and insisted that he had been suspended for no reason. Subsequently, his statutory release was revoked, as indicated in the Assessment for Decision, dated 11 February 2003. (exhibit 9, pp.900-906) [ 65 ] Mr. Camara was released a second time on statutory release on 7 July 2005. (exhibit 5, p.298) As before, he was released to Keele Street.

He was suspended six weeks later, on 18 August 2005. The terms of his release contained a number of special conditions imposed by the National Parole Board. These included the residency condition, abstaining from drugs and alcohol, reporting all intimate relationships, avoiding certain places and persons involved in criminal activity, and not to enter any establishment where the primary

source of income is derived from the sale of alcohol. The Assessment for Decision, dated 14 September 2005 (exhibit 10b) sets out these terms of release. Once again, Ms. Revill was Mr. Camara’s site supervisor. He arrived on 7 July 2005 and they met at 6:16pm. His warrant expiry date was now 6 October 2006. [ 66 ] At this initial meeting the witness again reviewed the terms and conditions of his supervision. However, a large portion of the meeting consisted of Mr. Camara arguing about the circumstances of his previous suspension, even though this had now occurred over three years ago. He told Ms.

Revill that he should not have been suspended and that Correctional Services had done little to help him in the community. He believed that he had done his time and that he should be left alone; he did not agree with the fact that he had been given the residency condition. When he was questioned about drug use, he did admit that he had used marijuana the day before his release, and he was cautioned as a result. Mr. Camara also indicated that his brother had purchased a restaurant, and that he wanted to be there for deliveries and cleaning.

They also discussed his late arrival that day as he had been released at 9a.m. but did not arrive at the half-way house until 5p.m. He was evasive about his whereabouts, but when pressed admitted that he had gone to his brother’s house for lunch and a swim. He was cautioned as a result. He then became defensive and hostile, stating he had served his time and he was frustrated with the restrictions of his community release. [ 67 ] The next day, 8 July 2005, Mr. Camara approached Ms. Revill about wanting to visit his son. He stated that Ms. Haier was supportive of this.

The witness advised him that she would need to speak to her to confirm this, and touched on the problematic home visit on the previous release. He was allowed to have contact with his son and attend his hockey games; Mr. Camara was also given a 7p.m. curfew. Their next contact was on 11 July 2005 when they had a disciplinary interview. This resulted from three incidents being reported on 9 July 2005: two involved his signing in late and missing his call-in that day, the other was the detection of an odour of marijuana being detected in the washroom after Mr. Camara had been in it. As a result, Ms.

Revill and her supervisor, Steven Popovski, spoke to him. Mr. Camara was “animated and vocal”, stating that he wanted to spend time with his son and felt he was being responsible. He denied smoking marijuana. A few days later, on 13 July 2005, Ms. Revill attempted to do a work visit to Mr. Camara’s brother’s restaurant, the Golden Eye Cafe, this being one of the places where Mr. Camara claimed to have been on 9 July 2005. However, she found that it was closed and there was very little furniture inside. She confronted him about this on 14 July 2005 since he was signing out routinely to the restaurant. Mr.

Camara became upset. He stated, “I wish this country would burn.” He then walked away and went by a chaplain, telling him, “all religion should burn.” Ms. Revill was concerned for Mr. Camara’s mental health as a result. While she was familiar from her previous supervision of Mr. Camara of his aggressive, argumentative side, he would now jump from topic to topic with little cohesion between the subjects they were discussing. When the witness spoke to him about his comments later that day, he denied making them, but then admitted that he did. Ms.

Revill told him that she was concerned about the difficulties she was having communicating with him. He replied that he was not in a good mood due to the heat, and that when he woke up that morning he explained, “I heard voices in my head.” He then became frustrated with her, stating he was not crazy and she was not a “diagnosed psychologist,” so he would not discuss the matter with her further. After reviewing his behaviour with her supervisor, it was decided that the situation should be monitored as Mr. Camara would not voluntarily participate in a psychiatric assessment.

The witness also took into account that he had only been out of prison for eight days. Although he had again missed his call-in and been late returning to Keele Street after their conversation, he was allowed to make regular call-ins at 16:00 hours rather than have to sign in person. [ 68 ] Their next meeting was on 26 July 2005 following a report that a person who was a former offender came to the Keele Centre with a d

[…]