Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2014 SKPC 108

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKPC 108 Date: May 9, 2014 Information: 24483045 Location: La Loche _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - George Lambert Lemaigre Appearing: J. Schmidt For the Crown K. Srodulski For the Accused JUDGMENT D.M. EBERT , J [ 1 ] George Lambert Lemaigre, on September 20, 2012, was convicted of the following offences both occurring on April 3, 2012: 1) At Clearwater River Dene First Nation, in the Province of Saskatchewan, did in committing an assault on Melvina Stella Lemaigre, cause bodily harm to her, contrary to s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code ; and

2) At La Loche, in the Province of Saskatchewan, did without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with a condition of his Long Term Supervision Order, namely, have no contact with Melvina Lemaigre, contrary to s. 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] He was found not guilty on this same date of a further charge under s. 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] The Crown had proceeded by way of indictment on all the charges and Mr. Lemaigre had elected trial by Provincial Court Judge. [ 4 ] Mr.

Lemaigre was declared a long term offender in 2006 and had been sentenced to three years in custody to be followed by ten years supervision in the community. This was the order he was on when the current offences were committed. [ 5 ] Prior to sentencing on the s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code charge, the Crown gave notice that it would be pursuing a

Part XXIV application to have Mr. Lemaigre declared a dangerous offender. [ 6 ] The Crown’s application under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code was granted on April 5, 2013 and Mr. Lemaigre was remanded for the purposes of a Psychiatric Assessment by Dr. S. Lohrasbe. [ 7 ] The proceedings under s. 753 commenced on November 25, 2013 and continued to November 28, 2013. At the hearing, the Crown filed the following exhibits: 1) P-1 - Consent of the Attorney General (s.754 C.C.), dated November 14, 2012; 2) P-2 - Binder No. 1; 3) P-3 - Binder No. 2; 4) P-4 - Curriculum Vitae of Dr. S. Lohrasbe; and 5) P-5 - Report of Dr.

Lohrasbe dated July 6, 2013. and called four witnesses: 1) James Gonzo, employee of Correctional Service Canada; 2) Leanne Skene, employee of Correctional Service Canada; 3) Larry Laliberte, Parole Officer, Correctional Service Canada; and 4) Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe, forensic psychiatrist. [ 8 ] Defence called no evidence. [ 9 ] Binder No. 1, filed as Exhibit P-2, and consisting of 32 tabs includes Mr. Lemaigre’s criminal record (Tab 32); court documents referring to Mr.

Lemaigre’s prior convictions for violence including some factual and sentencing information, some portions of the transcript of the dangerous offender proceeding in 2002; and the following from the Dangerous Offender/ Long Term Offender proceedings in 2002-2006; from Dr . Holden: Forensic Assessment (February 4, 2002; Tab 20); followup letter (January 6, 2006; Tab 27) and updated Assessment Report (January 6, 2006; Tab 28); Psychological Assessment by Dr. Arnold (August 19, 2005; Tab 25); R. v. Lemaigre, 2002 Q.B.J. No. 53; (Tab 22); Lemaigre v.

R. , 2004 SKCA 125 (Tab 23); and a partial transcript from the reconsideration hearing before Justice Ball (January 18, 19 and 20, 2006; Tab 29); court documents and sentencing transcript from proceedings August 15, 2011 (Tab 30); and court documents and transcript from convictions on September 20, 2012 (Tab 31).

[ 10 ] Binder No. 2, filed as Exhibit P-3, contains 64 Correctional Service Canada (hereinafter referred to as CSC) documents concerning Mr. Lemaigre dated from December 20, 2002 to November 29, 2012. These include Assessment Reports, Correctional Plans, Psychological/ Psychiatric Assessments, Program Performance Reports, Parole Board Reports and reports from his Parole Officer while Mr. Lemaigre was serving his Long Term Supervision Order. [ 11 ] After the evidence was called, the Crown requested leave to file a written brief and final argument was adjourned to January 24, 2014.

On that date, Defence counsel made a request to now file a written brief of law and by consent, this matter was set for decision on May 9, 2014. [ 12 ] The Crown’s position is that Mr. Lemaigre ought to be declared a dangerous offender and that he should be given an indeterminate sentence. If the Court determines that an indeterminate sentence is not appropriate then the appropriate determinate sentence would be 6 - 8 years in custody followed by a 10 year Long Term Supervision Order. [ 13 ] Mr.

Lemaigre’s position, as outlined in his counsel’s brief, is that he does not meet the statutory requirements for designation as a dangerous offender in that the Crown has not proven that there is a likelihood that Mr. Lemaigre will fail to restrain his behaviour in the future. Further, if the Court does designate him as a dangerous offender, the Court ought to impose a determinate sentence with a Long Term Supervision Order or simply impose a sentence under

Part XXIII for the offence for which he has now been convicted. The Court must also consider what are ordinarily called Gladue factors in making its decision. [ 14 ] The issues to be decided are: 1) Is assault causing bodily harm a serious personal injury offence as defined under s. 752 of the Criminal Code ? 2) Is George Lemaigre a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) (a)(

i) or (ii) of the Criminal Code ? 3) If George Lemaigre is found to be a dangerous offender, what is the appropriate sentence to be imposed under s. 753(4) and (4.1)? 4) If George Lemaigre is not found to be a dangerous offender, can he be found to be a long term offender or will the Court impose a sentence under

Part XXIII for the offence for which he has now been convicted? ( s. 753(5) of the Criminal Code ) CRIMINAL RECORD [ 15 ] A printout of Mr. Lemaigre’s criminal record was filed in Exhibit P-1, Tab 32. [ 16 ] Mr. Lemaigre’s record begins on May 31,1971 and continues to August 15, 2011 and shows a total of 53 convictions, including 23 convictions for violent offences and Melvina Lemaigre (the named victim in the current offence) is the victim in 12 previous violent offences.

She was the victim in the predicate offence leading to the current Long Term Supervision Order and is again the victim in the predicate offence in this current matter. [ 17 ] The details of his violent offences (except for three of the earliest convictions, that is the conviction for assault causing bodily harm on May 31, 1971, the conviction for assault causing bodily harm on April 4, 1972, and the conviction for pointing a firearm on January 1, 1978) are briefly as follows: May 22, 1980 Convicted of assault causing bodily harm and the victim in Melvina Lemaigre, his common-law partner.

The assault involved kicking her but there is no information as to the injuries she received.

August 24, 1981 Convicted of wounding with intent under s. 228 of the Criminal Code (as it then was). The victim was a male person with whom he had been drinking and playing cards. After a fight between Mr. Lemaigre and the victim, Mr. Lemaigre returns with a knife and stabs the victim more than once in the leg and posterior area of his body. He was taken to the hospital and received stitches for his wounds. January 14, 1982 Convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The victim was Melvina Lemaigre and the hospital report filed states she was “beaten extremely brutally” and had substantial injuries to her face, head, arms, shoulders, chest and ribs, ankles and a bone in an arm was fractured and “grossly misplaced”. October 28, 1982 Convicted of assault causing bodily harm but the details of that conviction are not available. March 8, 1984 Convicted of assault with a weapon. The victim was a male person with whom Mr. Lemaigre had been drinking. Mr. Lemaigre used the blunt end of an axe to hit him and the victim received six stitches.

November 27, 1986 Convicted of two counts of assault causing bodily harm. Melvina Lemaigre was the victim in both matters occurring approximately 2.5 months apart. The details are not known. April 6, 1989 Convicted of assault causing bodily harm and common assault. Melvina Lemaigre was the victim of the common assault and the victim of the assault causing bodily harm was a different female person who had tried to stop Mr. Lemaigre from verbally abusing his wife. He threw a cup at this second person hitting her on the forehead. She was taken to hospital for her injuries but the extent of those injuries is unknown.

The parties all had been drinking. There are no details available with respect to the assault on Melvina Lemaigre. February 22, 1990 Convicted of common assault. Mr. Lemaigre who had been drinking began arguing with the victim, a younger male person, over a jacket. The victim is hit twice with a stick on his shoulder and head and required 2-3 stitches to his head. September 12, 1991 Convicted of assault causing bodily harm and two counts of common assault. Melvina Lemaigre was the victim in all of the matters and these occurred over a two month period.

In the Pre-Sentence Report, filed at time of sentencing, Melvina Lemaigre accepted much of the responsibility for Mr. Lemaigre’s violence. Alcohol was identified as a major factor in Mr. Lemaigre’s life and he speaks of leaving his wife to avoid further problems. There were indications in the report Mr. Lemaigre was not prepared to accept complete responsibility for his violence and the writer states he shows no remorse. In the assault that occurred first in time, the parties argued, he hits her in the head and rib area, then later pushes her onto a bed and strikes her three times on her face.

On the date of the next offence, Mr. Lemaigre was drinking, locates Melvina Lemaigre in the bedroom with the baby, begins to yell at her, then stamps on her foot, then punches her in the chest. She had bruises from both. On the date of the third offence the victim was walking on the street when she did not respond to a demand by Mr. Lemaigre and he then punches her in the face. April 8, 1993 The criminal record shows he was convicted of two charges of common assault but there is no documentation before the Court with respect to these convictions. June 20, 1994 Convicted of sexual assault. Mr.

Lemaigre and his wife were drinking at a residence near La Loche. The victim who is Mr. Lemaigre’s sister-in-law, fell asleep/passed out in a bedroom where a four year old was sleeping. Mr. Lemaigre proceeds to pull down their respective pants and is on top of her when another child enters the bedroom and Mr. Lemaigre gets up and leaves the bedroom. His counsel advises the Court he thought this person was his wife. November 7, 1995 Convicted of common assault. The victim is Melvina Lemaigre. Her version was that she was in her bedroom when Mr. Lemaigre came home to take the TV to the pawn shop.

They argue and he punches her with a closed fist on the side of her head. Although she had a cut to her head she did not require stitches. Further information before the Court indicated that Melvina Lemaigre has initiated the argument. Mr. Lemaigre was drinking at the time and told the Court he is prepared to address his drinking problem.

November 21, 1996 Convicted of common assault. The victim is Melvina Lemaigre and both had been drinking at a local bar. On returning to their residence Mr. Lemaigre argues with the victim and then grabs her, punches her in the face 4-5 times resulting in a bloody nose and bruising and scratches to other parts of her body. One of the couple’s daughters observed the violence. The issue of Mr. Lemaigre’s alcohol problem is again raised in submissions. April 30, 1998 Convicted of common assault and is sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary. The victim is Melvina Lemaigre and Mr.

Lemaigre had been drinking at the time of the offence. When Melvina Lemaigre returns home Mr. Lemaigre asks where she had been and when she told him, he became enraged and punched her in the mouth, nose and head area. This resulted in a bloody nose and swollen lip and some bleeding from near her ear. Mr. Lemaigre’s counsel advised the Court that he hit her initially with his elbow and that the last blow was a back hand hit on the side of the head and did not cause bleeding. Crown accepts his version. The Court, in sentencing, notes that Mr.

Lemaigre does not learn from past experiences and continues to be violent to his partner. December 17, 2002 Convicted of common assault and is again sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary but there is no documentation before the Court with respect to this conviction. January 20, 2006 Mr. Lemaigre had been convicted of aggravated assault on Melvina Lemaigre in 2002 but on this date was sentenced to three years in a federal penitentiary and was found to be a Long Term Offender and given a Long Term Supervision Order for 10 years. The actual offence date of this matter was November 24, 2000.

The circumstances of this offence are set out in Lemaigre , 2002 QBJ No. 53 (para. 18 to 23 incl.). The parties were drinking with a third person, there is an argument and Mr. Lemaigre pushes Melvina Lemaigre to the floor. The third party intervenes but she is punched and knocked to the floor. Mr. Lemaigre gets a knife and stabs Melvina Lemaigre once in the back resulting in a substantial wound to her shoulder. [ 18 ] There is a further conviction on his record that is of note in these proceedings. On August 15, 2011, Mr. Lemaigre was convicted of breach of a Long Term Supervision Order.

On two occasions he breached a condition of his order that he have no contact with Melvina Lemaigre. When addressing the Court at the time of sentencing he says he is living at Ducharme Lake and only comes into La Loche to report to his Parole Officer, to pick up groceries and to visit and bring wild meat to his grandchildren. He says she (Melvina) always tries “... to pull me back to jail all the time...”. He says he is sober and is trying to stay away from “that woman”. There was no allegation of violence towards Melvina Lemaigre. PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS [ 19 ] Mr.

Lemaigre has been involved in numerous such assessments during his incarceration including the Forensic Psychiatric Assessment now filed in these proceedings. Mr. Lemaigre was assessed three times on the prior

(2002) Crown application to have him designated as a dangerous offender. [ 20 ] I will review the earlier CSC reports briefly as background information only. The records filed in Exhibit P-2 show: a Family Violence Risk Assessment (March 25, 2003; Tab 4); Psychological Assessments (July 30, 2003; Tab 8; July 17, 2006; Tab 21; April 20, 2007; Tab 26; and July 24, 2008; Tab 36). The earliest of these CSC assessments rate him at a high risk for violence noting he has limited insight into his behaviour and blames his use of alcohol and his wife for his actions.

In 2003, in an assessment, he is again shown as a high risk for violence and High Intensity Family Violence and Substance Abuse Programming is recommended. In 2006, in a report prepared for Parole Board hearings he was rated as a high risk for violent recidivism particularly in the general and domestic violence areas and if released, would need to be supervised as a high risk, high needs offender who needs significant community based supports and substantial frequency of monitoring.

In 2007, he was assessed again for a Parole Board hearing and at the time was involved in the Moderate Intensity Substance Abuse Program and was to take the High Intensity Family Violence Program. He was assessed as a high risk to re-offend violently and, a moderate risk to re-offend generally. It was noted at this time that he was verbalizing that he was taking responsibility for his actions and cannot blame others for his behaviour. He also now realizes he cannot return to La Loche. It was also recommended that he be placed in a halfway house to ensure closer supervision initially.

In 2008, at the time of the report, Mr. Lemaigre had completed the National Substance Abuse Program, moderate intensity; and the Substance Abuse Maintenance Program, as well as the Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program. It is also noted that in spite of substance abuse programming he has not been able to be successful abstaining upon release. The final report with respect to family violence programming indicated that Mr. Lemaigre had made some changes in his thinking and behaviour. Mr.

Lemaigre had also upgraded his education and had become involved with “chapel” and is exploring “native spirituality”. The assessor however, based on some remarks made by Mr. Lemaigre in the assessment, questioned whether Mr. Lemaigre was taking responsibility for his actions as he continued to blame Melvina Lemaigre and alcohol. He was assessed as a high risk to “... recidivate violently, particularly in the case of domestic

disputes...”, and a moderate risk to re-offend generally. [ 21 ] The assessment reports completed for the s. 753 Dangerous Offender Hearing in 2002 and Reconsideration Hearing in 2006 were completed by Drs. Holden and Arnold. I will review these as background to the current application. [ 22 ] In the Forensic Assessment Report, dated February 4, 2002, Dr. Holden concluded that Mr. Lemaigre was suffering from an Antisocial Personality Disorder - aggressive type and an Alcohol Dependence Disorder but had no obvious signs of mental illness or Organic Brain Syndrome. Dr.

Holden completed a Risk Assessment using the HCR20 checklist of risk factors. The results were that there was a high possibility that Mr. Lemaigre would be involved in violent behaviour in the future, that his potential for re-offending violently is very high. He noted this risk for continuing violent behaviour is related to the clear relationship between Mr.

Lemaigre’s violent behaviour and his alcohol abuse, his personality disorder, his lack of insight into the aetiology of his criminal behaviour, his “... essentially antisocial attitude ...”; he behaves impulsively especially when under the influence of alcohol. Although Mr.

Lemaigre has taken programmes while incarcerated there is a “... continual cycle of failure to put into practice the concepts learned ... when he returns to the community ...”, is consistently unable to teach himself alternative ways of expressing frustration and anger, and has consistently, “... over several decades now ...”, reverted to physical violence as a way of expressing his frustration. He, however, notes that there have been gaps in programming because of language issues. Dr.

Holden noted that his release plan lacked feasibility and put him at a high risk to re-offend violently, particularly since he did not have adequate personal support and Mr. Lemaigre has not in the past successfully completed parole or statutory release conditions. He also stated that Mr. Lemaigre is unlikely to comply with future remediation attempts, in part based on his history and notes that he finds Mr. Lemaigre untreatable.

His conclusion in this report, is that there is very little possibility that the risk to re-offend will be effectively controlled in the community. [ 23 ] The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Lemaigre v. R. , 2004 SKCA 125 (dated April 14, 2004) set aside the Court of Queen’s Bench finding that Mr. Lemaigre was a dangerous offender, re-opened the sentencing proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench, and remitted the application back for reconsideration. It was in this context that further assessments by both Dr. Arnold and Dr. Holden were with the Court. [ 24 ] Dr.

Arnold’s report dated August 19, 2005 stated that psychological testing indicated that Mr. Lemaigre had poor comprehension of English, his adjustment to the institutional setting was stable, and that he did not have a developed understanding of the factors that likely contribute to his violence. Dr. Arnold reviewed previous testing that had been completed on Mr. Lemaigre and concluded that the past psychological assessments and paper and pencil tests completed on Mr.

Lemaigre were to be approached with caution and may be invalid because of language difficulties and because cultural and social environment factors were only partially considered. On tests performed by Dr. Arnold, relating to cognitive ability, Mr. Lemaigre scored poorly on tests with respect to verbal and written English comprehension. Dr. Arnold concludes that this is an obvious potential reason for the failure of any prior treatment to change his behaviour and that the prognosis for reducing his risk for re-offending by participation in programmes he understands is untested. Dr.

Arnold, in result, agreed with Dr. Holden’s assessment that Mr. Lemaigre had a significant and substantial risk of re- offence, particularly violently however, concluded that there is a “... real prospect for control in the community if appropriate treatment is actually delivered in a manner this man can understand ...”. Dr.

Arnold set out certain conditions that would need to be in place to reduce his risk and these included receiving, responding and showing progress with alcoholism treatment that is delivered in his own language; receiving treatment regarding his violent behaviour that is delivered in his own language; on release he must be subject to strict conditions to avoid alcohol completely and permanently with any checks on relapse that can be instituted, avoid his common-law partner and quite possibly all common-law relationships, may need to avoid his home community of La Loche on a permanent basis, and needs to have developed for him a network of community support and monitors.

Dr. Arnold concludes that “My preference would be that for an individual with his history that he would be under permanent supervision if he is released to the community ...”. [ 25 ] Dr. Holden’s second report and a letter filed in response to Dr. Arnold’s report are dated January 6, 2006. Dr. Holden again interviewed Mr.

Lemaigre and found that he presented very differently than at the previous assessment in that he presents a significant difference in outlook and attitude; had upgraded his education and this had significantly increased his feelings of self-worth and self- confidence; has now accepted personal responsibility for his offending behaviour; and a much more positive attitude towards programming; is now more proficient in English and more self-confident about accepting programming in English; and now has an entirely different release plan. Dr. Holden then concludes that he cannot any longer conclude Mr.

Lemaigre is untreatable, that there is now a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community. [ 26 ] The most recent report is the report by Dr. Lohrasbe filed in these proceedings as Exhibit P-4. This report will be dealt with as part of the evidence presented to this Court at the time of this hearing. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

[ 27 ] The documents in Exhibit P-3 show the following: Mr. Lemaigre was sentenced to his most recent federal penitentiary sentence on January 20, 2006. He spent most of his sentence at the Prince Albert Penitentiary and had no institutional infractions during that period. He was generally assessed as a medium escape risk. He served this sentence until warrant expiry and was released on January 19, 2009 to live at La Loche under the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order (hereinafter known as LTSO) which was to expire on January 19, 2019.

The Parole Board in both 2007 and 2008 had recommended he be held to his warrant expiry date because of his continuing high risk to re-offend violently. [ 28 ] James Gonzo, an employee of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), currently works as Regional Segregation Oversight Manager at the Regional Headquarters in Saskatoon and is also one of two Prairie Region members of the National Long Term Supervision/Dangerous Offender Working Committee. In his 16 years of employment with CSC he has been employed in a series of roles, including that of a Parole Officer.

He does not recall any personal interaction with George Lemaigre. [ 29 ] Mr. Gonzo identified Exhibit P-3 as documents created by CSC with respect to Mr. Lemaigre while subject to a federal sentence. CSC documents are generally prepared for specific events or activities or decisions regarding an inmate. [ 30 ] He described in detail the database in which these documents are kept - an electronic database known as the Offender Management System (OMS). In general once a document is produced, it is reviewed by the author’s supervisor and once entered into the system is locked in and becomes an official CSC document.

The locked in date is recorded at the bottom of the document. Mr. Gonzo also described how factual changes or errors are dealt with. Every document is shared or reviewed with the offender and explained the process if an offender refuses to review it. [ 31 ] Each offender has more than one Parole Officer assigned to them, i.e. Intake Parole Officer, Institutional Parole Officer who manages the inmate’s case while incarcerated, and a Community Parole Officer who both prepares documents in preparation for release and then supervises the individual in the community. [ 32 ] Mr.

Gonzo referred specifically to a number of the documents in Exhibit P-3 and explained the purpose or rationale for the document. The first document is completed as soon as an inmate is sentenced to a federal penitentiary and Tab 2 is the Preliminary Assessment Report completed on Mr. Lemaigre by a Community Parole Officer. He addressed a number of Programme Performance Reports and Psychological Reports completed on Mr. Lemaigre.

Psychological Reports are generally completed on intake or on request if mental health needs arise or for programme planning and are mandatory when an offender/inmate is being reviewed for a possible detention referral to the Parole Board. The Programme Performance Reports in general showed that Mr. Lemaigre did complete required programming. [ 33 ] Mr. Gonzo also referred to Tab 28, Exhibit P-3 which shows that a Detention Order for George Lemaigre was made by the National Parole Board on September 19, 2007.

He was advised he was being held to warrant expiry because, although he had begun to address his criminogenic factors, there was little evidence of positive change and his risk of causing serious harm to another individual was still too high. [ 34 ] Reports from June 2008, at Tabs 33 to 37 inclusive, address Mr. Lemaigre’s release on his Long Term Supervision Order and a Parole Board Annual Review. These were completed by the Institutional Parole Officers, by his Community Parole Officer (Larry Laliberte), and include a Psychological Report. On September 11, 2008, Mr.

Lemaigre was again advised that he would continue to be held to warrant expiry date because it was likely that, if released he would commit an offence causing serious harm to another person. The Board noted that he had completed a number of CSC programmes and had begun to address his criminogenic factors but it was premature to claim that “... you have internalized all of the factors that need to be addressed in terms of your violent offending”. The Board then recommends that he participate in the Family Violence Maintenance Program (Tab 40). [ 35 ] Mr.

Lemaigre was released and began his Long Term Supervision Order on January 19, 2009. [ 36 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Gonzo is also referred to Tab 42 (dated August 23, 2009), addressing Mr. Lemaigre’s progress in the community since his release and Tab 43, Exhibit P-3, Sensational Incident Report dated December 14, 2009. Both were completed by the Community Parole Officer (Larry Laliberte) who was supervising George Lemaigre. The latter report must be completed when a

Parole Officer has received notification of an incident in the community involving the offender. In this case there was a notification that Mr. Lemaigre was being charged with assault and the report set out the details of the incident. The Parole Officer’s report states that Mr. Lemaigre was highly manageable in the community and compliant with his Correctional Plan including attending substance abuse counselling and participating in Aboriginal traditional ceremonies. The document shows a warrant for Mr.

Lemaigre’s arrest was executed on December 2, 2009 (Tab 44), after he had been in the community on the LTSO for approximately eleven months. The Crown initially recommended laying charges against Mr. Lemaigre however, when he appeared in Court in La Loche on January 26, 2010, the charges were stayed and on February 2, 2010, CSC was advised the Crown would also not be charging Mr. Lemaigre with breach of his LTSO (Tab 46). The suspension of Mr. Lemaigre’s LTSO was then cancelled and Mr.

Lemaigre was to return to the community with the following special conditions; abstain from alcohol and drugs and, have no direct or indirect contact with Melvina Lemaigre (Tab 47). [ 37 ] Suspension of a LTSO can be put in place to prevent a breach of a condition or special condition or suspicion of increased risk, if there is an actual breach, or to protect the public. A suspension of a LTSO can only be in effect for 90 days. During the first 30 days of that period CSC and the Parole Board must submit to the Crown a recommendation for the laying of a criminal charge.

The Crown then makes the ultimate decision re: the laying of a charge and must do so within that 90 day period or there is no further basis on which to hold the individual. If the decision is made to lay a charge the individual is then held on a remand warrant. As noted earlier, in 2009 Mr. Lemaigre had been held on a possible breach but no charges were laid so he was released back into the community. On release back into the community, the individual may be released on additional conditions and/or an increase in level of supervision. [ 38 ] Mr.

Gonzo addressed the purpose of reports entitled Community Assessment Report such as Tab 48, Exhibit P-3. Its purpose is to identify, before release, community supports or opportunities (such as employment) available on release. It provides information about the person or community resource, whether there is an understanding of the offender’s offence cycle, and the willingness to support. [ 39 ] Mr. Gonzo testified as to procedure and policy with offenders such as George Lemaigre who served his sentence to warrant expiry date and was then subject to a LTSO.

The individual on release is supervised at Level A for a period of 90 days and this requires a minimum of four face to face contacts each month. Level A supervision continues to be required for individuals with high risk factors whether dynamic or static. Once the 90 days are finished, the Community Parole Officer assesses the level of supervision required and the supervision could remain as Level A or could be reduced.

The levels of supervision and therefore frequency of contact range from Level A, i.e. four face to face contacts per month, to Level E which is one face to face contact every three months. [ 40 ] Mr. Gonzo addressed the imposition of special conditions in a LTSO. First of all the Court plays no role except one of recommendations in the imposition of such conditions. The initial recommendation for conditions on release are made by the Parole Officer about four months prior to release on the LTSO. The final decision is made by the Parole Board.

Certain legislated mandatory conditions are always imposed and include remaining in Canada, present identification and Release Certificate (setting out conditions of release) to a police officer when requested to do so, report your address to your Parole Officer and keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Special conditions are additional conditions imposed by the Parole Board to specifically address an individual’s risk factors, for example, abstain from use of alcohol and/or drugs. They must be the least intrusive measure necessary to manage the particular risk area.

Additional conditions can be attached during the LTSO or removed if no longer required. [ 41 ] Mr. Gonzo specifically addressed the imposition of a special condition of residence in an LTSO. Such a condition is time limited, that is, it can only be imposed for a 180 day period. After that period it must again be reviewed by the Parole Board but can again be imposed for a further 180 day period.

Further, such a condition would ordinarily require the individual to reside in a Community Correctional Centre, commonly known as a halfway house and it would be extremely rare for the Parole Board to impose a special condition for an individual to reside at a specific residence in a specific city. In his experience he has only seen a residence condition imposed once even though he has been involved in hundreds of cases.

However, an offender can only reside at a place approved by the Parole Officer and generally it is believed that you have better success with an offender who has been part of the release plan in terms of residence as long as it allows for risk to be managed. Mr. Gonzo also notes that a residence clause does not provide assurances that the offender’s whereabouts are known for 24 hours a day. [ 42 ] Mr. Gonzo outlined CSC rules and policies regarding the various sentencing options available once an individual is declared a dangerous offender.

If the individual is sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, he is eligible for full parole after seven years from the date of arrest (not the date of sentencing) and eligible for day parole three years prior to full parole eligibility, in other words after spending four years in custody from the date of arrest. The final decision as to eligibility for parole is made again by the Parole Board. Once an offender has reached the seven year mark for full parole eligibility, they are reviewed automatically every two years until granted either day or full parole. Mr.

Gonzo adds that, contrary to popular opinion, individuals sentenced to an indeterminate sentence

following a dangerous offender designation do quite well in the community under supervision because they have addressed their risk factors. When Mr. Gonzo is asked specifically about numbers of individuals declared dangerous offenders who are actually paroled, he says that out of 104 individuals in that category, there are three who are in the community under full parole.

However, approximately 50 % of those individuals have already passed their parole eligibility date. [ 43 ] When an offender, who has been declared a dangerous offender, is given an indeterminate sentence, but is granted parole, any conditions attached to release are imposed by the Parole Board. The result of a breach in such a case, is more severe than with an individual who breaches an LTSO as the offender can technically be held for the rest of his life, not for specific periods of time, as with LTSO breaches. Mr.

Gonzo also states again that even in a case of a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence who has been released on parole, that the imposition of a special condition requiring the individual to reside at a certain residence is extremely rare. Any discussion relating to residence would occur prior to release and would have been investigated as to its suitability. [ 44 ] If the individual is declared a dangerous offender and is sentenced to a determinate sentence once the sentence has been served, i.e. once warrant expiry date occurs, they are released.

They are also eligible for statutory release and full parole as with any other inmate. They are eligible for full parole after serving one third of their sentence, and eligible for day parole six months prior to full parole eligibility. The individuals are eligible for statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentence. The individual’s eligibility for parole is dependent on the level and manageability of their risk. [ 45 ] Mr.

Gonzo states that special conditions imposed on an individual with a LTSO will depend on the needs of the individual but conditions that are commonly imposed include non-consumption of alcohol and non-prescribed drugs, avoiding contact with certain people, avoid going to specific places such as casinos, participating in treatment although the latter is likely only imposed if the individual is willing to do so. However, the Parole Officer has the power to issue a special instruction for an individual to participate in a programme and if he refuses, then a suspension is a possibility. On cross-examination Mr.

Gonzo states that the offender on release would have a general condition to report where you are living and not to change that address without the permission of the Parole Officer.

Where an offender lives is part of the release planning and the Parole Officer has completed a community assessment of suitability and the offender’s release document would then include a general condition that he must not change his address without the permission of the Parole Officer. [ 46 ] In cross-examination, he is asked about CSC policy designed to avoid “over prescription” of programming and responds that recent research shows that more programming is not necessarily better but that the right programming is important.

Both programmes and interventions are provided at the penitentiary and any programmes are nationally accredited programs with different levels of intensity ranging from high to moderate to low. An offender will not repeat a programme but may go into a maintenance programme if recommended by the programme facilitator. Interventions, which may be recommended in addition to programming, include psychological counselling, involvement with Elders, AA, etc. [ 47 ] Linda Skene is employed by CSC and is now Director of the Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge in Maple Creek.

Previously she had been employed at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary (SaskPen) as a Program Delivery Officer, Parole Officer and then Chief of Programmes for eight years from 2002 to 2011. She also, while Chief of Programmes at SaskPen, chaired the Program Board, a board that makes decisions on what programmes people take, as well as overseeing and supervising Correctional Program Officers who facilitated the programmes at SaskPen. It was in this capacity she would have quality controlled and reviewed reports for programmes involving Mr.

Lemaigre. [ 48 ] Programmes at SaskPen are of two streams – Aboriginal and core and although the programme content is very similar, all Aboriginal programmes are facilitated with an Elder along with the Programme Facilitator. Mr. Lemaigre has participated in both streams of programmes. [ 49 ] Ms. Skene addressed the specific programmes completed by Mr. Lemaigre while he was serving sentences in the SaskPen. [ 50 ] Mr.

Lemaigre, during his first federal sentence (1998), completed the Society of Aboriginal Addictions Recovery Programme, Moderate Intensity Domestic Violence, as well as, Cognitive Living Skills Programmes. Upon completion of the Domestic Violence Programme he was rated as a moderate high risk for domestic violence and was “... not successful due to language barriers” (Exhibit P-3 at Tab 17). [ 51 ] Many of the programmes taken by Mr. Lemaigre during his first federal sentence are no longer offered or offered in a different format.

The Moderate Intensity Domestic Violence Programme is now called the Moderate Intensity Family Violence Programme, has a specific focus on spousal violence and consists of 35 - 40 sessions. The Cognitive Living Skills Programme assisted with problem solving, social skills and was about 36 sessions long but is no longer offered at the SaskPen but rather the problem solving

and social skills have been combined into other programmes. [ 52 ] Mr. Lemaigre completed Adult Basic Education programmes, Levels one and two. [ 53 ] Mr. Lemaigre completed an Aboriginal Substance Abuse Programme (1998), a Substance Abuse Relapse Booster Programme (November 1998 and February 2000). A booster programme is a “refresher” and is usually completed 60 days prior to release and is focussed on developing a realistic relapse prevention plan (Tab 13).

A maintenance programme differs from a booster in that the maintenance programme gives support to work on deficit areas or areas needing more work while the booster is a quick refresher before you go into the community. [ 54 ] Although Mr. Lemaigre had been assessed as needing high intensity programmes for both family violence and substance abuse, it is CSC practice to have offenders only participate in one high intensity programme as the problem solving skills and relapse prevention plans taught were essentially the same in all programmes. Mr.

Lemaigre’s correctional plans in 2006 and 2007 recommended that he take the Moderate Intensity Substance Abuse Program but the high intensity Family Violence Programme. [ 55 ] The next programming he completed is referred to at Tab 18, the Correctional Plan from 2006 (after he was declared a Long Term Offender). It was recommended he participate in Moderate Intensity Substance Abuse and Maintenance Programming, High Intensity Family Violence and the National Aboriginal Basic Healing Programme (a programme designed to educate offenders about their culture).

Tab 20 specifically addressed his programme performance and successful completion of the Aboriginal Basic Healing program in 2006. [ 56 ] Although Mr. Lemaigre took the Moderate Intensity Family Violence Programming at SaskPen in 1998 (Tab 17) and was not successful due to language barriers, but still remained a high risk for family violence in 2003, it was recommended he take the Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Programme. Eventually he was transferred to Drumheller Penitentiary to participate in this programme but the programme never took place (Tab 23) and Mr.

Lemaigre was transferred back to SaskPen, where he successfully completed the Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Prevention Programme. This programme runs for five months for approximately 100 full day sessions. The objectives given to Mr. Lemaigre were to avoid incidents of physical violence, to deal with marital conflict, develop pro-social strategies and skills to deal with marital conflict, and accept full responsibility for the current offences.

Five specific programme targets were identified for him to assist in meeting those objectives - the acceptance of responsibility for abuse and violent behaviour, acknowledge use of power and control tactics, extent of skill development, recognize cognitive distortions and beliefs, and understand an abusiveness pattern. The programme further addresses the offender’s childhood and the cycle of violence, and there is a major focus on relapse prevention planning. [ 57 ] It was reported by the facilitator at the completion of the Family Violence Prevention programme (April to May 1, 2008; Tab 32) that Mr.

Lemaigre had made some gains in the areas targeted for him but it was felt he had deeper issues than those identified as triggers. He had identified triggers as being disrespectful, people disrespecting his children, use of substances but did not admit anger as being a trigger, but did admit to getting hurt, frustrated by life situations with his tendency to bury his emotions and pain. The facilitator stated Mr. Lemaigre was at the preparation stage of change (referred to as the second stage after denial) in that he was starting to look at possibly making some changes in his intimate relationships. Ms.

Skene agreed on questioning, that Mr. Lemaigre remained at this level even after five months of daily sessions. The facilitator however also reported that he displayed excellent motivation for the programme and had good attendance. It was recommended by both the facilitator and the Parole Board that he attend the Family Violence Maintenance Program, but there is no record indicating he actually did that programme or why he did not do so. [ 58 ] Mr. Lemaigre participated in the National Substance Abuse Programme (a core programme) and completed it on September 2, 1998.

He also completed Substance Abuse Relapse Prevention on November 10, 1998 and a further Substance Abuse Relapse Prevention Booster on November 10, 1998 and February 24, 2000. In 2007, Mr. Lemaigre successfully completed the National Substance Abuse Programme – moderate level. The target areas for Mr. Lemaigre were cognitive coping strategies, problem solving and relapse prevention. Further review and reworking was required for an adequate Relapse Prevention Plan, so he was referred to a Substance Abuse Maintenance Programme (Tab 29) and completed that programme on February 8, 2008.

Although there were indications he struggled with language and had low literacy skills, a Correctional Officer or an Offender Peer Tutor was available to assist on a one to one basis. The facilitator indicated he was motivated and expressed a desire to continue working. [ 59 ] The purpose of the Substance Abuse Maintenance Programme is to review deficit areas or areas that need additional work and in Mr. Lemaigre’s case this included cognitive coping (understanding triggers and being able to make appropriate choices) and

relapse prevention planning. When asked what gains Mr. Lemaigre made in the Substance Abuse Maintenance Programme, Ms. Skene says he was able to identify triggers and high risk situations, but it was noted that his pattern of substance abuse was deep rooted and because his criminal history was long and extensive, it was concluded that he would require full supervision and guidance in the community and require more review and work to ensure he was able to develop an adequate and realistic relapse plan.

It was also noted that he had been unable to achieve and maintain a healthy lifestyle in the past as he has continued to relapse when in the community. It was expected he would complete the Booster Programme before he went into the community but there is no record of that. [ 60 ] Ms. Skene agreed that Mr. Lemaigre successfully completed all of the programming that was expected of him. [ 61 ] Ms. Skene also addressed what programming would be available for Mr.

Lemaigre if he should receive another penitentiary sentence and stated that the programming offered currently would be the same as that offered in 2008 so CSC would look at the current convictions, make recommendations but he would likely only participate in the Family Violence Maintenance Programme and if the current offence did not involve alcohol, he would likely not be referred for any programming for substance abuse. He may however, be encouraged to participate in AA, Elder counselling, and cultural and spiritual activities. It was Ms. Skene’s view that Mr.

Lemaigre had the skills and knowledge re: family violence but needs to put them to use, so participation in the maintenance programme would only be recommended. The maintenance programming is open ended so an offender’s time in that programme would depend on the objectives they need to address and the progress in that regard. Even if there was an indication he no longer had the knowledge and skills from the High Intensity Family Violence Programme he would only address that with the facilitator in the Maintenance Programme. [ 62 ] When asked about CSC community programming, Ms.

Skene stated that CSC provides a “Community Maintenance Programme” but only in the major centres, i.e. Regina, Saskatoon and Prince Albert, and this is an “all encompassing” programme that deals with adjustment to the community and is not, as most institution based maintenance programmes, tied to a specific risk area. There is also a Community Intervention Programme that is part of the Maintenance Programme that helps individuals find work placements and housing opportunities. Other than that, individuals are referred to whatever other programmes are available in their local community, e.g.

Mental Health Services, AA, etc. [ 63 ] In cross-examination Ms. Skene addressed the individual’s management in the community wherein he reports to his Parole Officer who connects him to appropriate community resources. The entire community case management team, which may include facilitators of community programmes as well as Elders, assists with programming to address risk.

It was also noted that the three major centres (as above) have Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers who assist with networking and setting up the offender with Aboriginal Elders or groups. [ 64 ] Larry Laliberte is a Community Parole Officer employed by CSC and has worked in that position since 1998. He is the Parole Officer for La Loche and has supervised Mr. Lemaigre since his release in 2009. Mr. Laliberte initially seemed unclear as to the exact status of Mr. Lemaigre, he stated that Mr. Lemaigre was on conditions to abstain from alcohol and drugs and have no contact with Melvina Lemaigre.

He was not sure when he started supervising Mr. Lemaigre under a Long Term Supervision Order even though that Order had been made by the Court on January 20, 2006 and was effective on Mr. Lemaigre’s release to the community in January 2009. [ 65 ] Mr. Laliberte understood Mr. Lemaigre had a history of violence against his spouse and that alcohol was the main contributing factor to that violence. [ 66 ] Mr. Laliberte authored Exhibit P-3, Tab 34 (Assessment for Decision dated June 2008), which addressed Mr. Lemaigre’s release on the Long Term Supervision Order and conditions to be attached.

The conditions were to abstain from alcohol and drugs and not have contact with Melvina Lemaigre. There was also to be programming to sustain sobriety and live a pro-social lifestyle, was to be involved in “social health counselling”, to report to the RCMP once each month, and look for work or obtain education. The social health counselling was to deal with personal emotional issues. [ 67 ] Later reports show Mr. Lemaigre, upon release, talked with Elders and a mental health therapist and was involved with the Dene Clearwater Treatment Centre. Mr.

Laliberte was not able to provide any information as to the extent of Mr. Lemaigre’s involvement with the mental health therapist. He was not a client at the Dene Clearwater Centre but rather worked there as an NADAP Elder for a short period of time. Mr. Laliberte says that when Mr. Lemaigre was at the trap line (80 miles north of La Loche) he also attended AA and Sacred Circles which had a holistic health focus.

[ 68 ] When asked about the key components that led to Mr. Lemaigre’s success in the community for close to two years, Mr. Laliberte responds that Mr. Lemaigre attended programmes he needed as followup from the institution and felt more comfortable living on a trap line as he would have less contact with the victim (Melvina Lemaigre). However, Mr. Laliberte also adds that it was difficult for Mr. Lemaigre to be at the trap line for long periods as he was close to his grandchildren who live in La Loche and because he has a lot of support from his family.

He would also return to La Loche to see Elders, remain in contact with the treatment centre, do odd jobs for the Chief and council, and attend cultural gatherings. Later Mr. Laliberte agreed that being at the trap line and with nature, being able to avoid stressors in the community and keeping busy were the key components to Mr. Lemaigre’s success in the community. [ 69 ] When however he is asked about institutional reports that Mr. Lemaigre rarely participated in cultural activities while in the institution, Mr. Laliberte says Mr.

Lemaigre was more active in such activities in the community because this was his own environment and the Dene language was spoken. [ 70 ] In Correctional Plan Progress Report from July 23, 2009 (Tab 42 ) Mr. Laliberte states that Mr. Lemaigre was working for Public Works Clearwater Dene First Nation and had become a “... well respected individual in the community because of his dedication to voluntary service and specifically to individuals suffering from substance abuse problems...”. Since this report is authored some six months after his release from SaskPen, Mr.

Laliberte was asked what this was based on and he responded that it was based on Mr. Lemaigre’s employment, his work at the treatment centre and his visible community work helping people. [ 71 ] Mr. Laliberte supervised Mr. Lemaigre initially on his release at Level A supervision (contact once per week), however Mr. Laliberte recommended in July 2009, that Mr. Lemaigre was now manageable at a Level B frequency of contact because he was doing well enough in the community. Mr. Lemaigre’s level of supervision was then reduced to Level C on March 16, 2011 (Tab 49). [ 72 ] Mr.

Laliberte was asked about a Sensational Incident Report on Mr. Lemaigre dated December 14, 2009. He states that such a report is required if there is an incident in the community that is reported to the police and this report refers to an incident between Mr. Lemaigre and his common-law wife where he pushed her and she fell down. There was no allegation he was drinking at the time. No charge was laid. [ 73 ] When asked why, even after this incident, he still recommended a further reduction in the level of contact or supervision, he responded that Mr.

Lemaigre was doing what he was supposed to be doing on parole and his risk was manageable in the community. [ 74 ] On June 18, 2011, Mr. Lemaigre was charged with breach of his Long Term Supervision Order (Exhibit P-2, Tab 30) and was eventually convicted and sentenced to six months in custody. Mr. Laliberte agreed that Mr. Lemaigre was being supervised at Level C, a reduced level of supervision, at the time. Mr. Laliberte again resumed supervision of Mr.

Lemaigre after he served this sentence and until the date of his most recent offences in April 2012. [ 75 ] Exhibit P-2, Tab 52 dated September 29, 2011 and authored by Mr. Laliberte deals with Mr. Lemaigre’s statutory release from that sentence and states that Mr. Lemaigre will continue to be supervised at Level C. Tab 56 also authored by Mr. Laliberte states that Mr. Lemaigre was released back to the community on December14, 2011 and that there are no risk factors to suggest that he could not be supervised at Level C and no indicators that his threat to society had increased.

However Tab 60, dated May 24, 2012 and authored by a Parole Officer Supervisor, states that Mr. Lemaigre was erroneously identified requiring Level C supervision and is only eligible for Level B since “... he’s currently identified as medium in static factors and low in dynamic.” This essentially increased Mr. Lemaigre’s level of supervision. Mr. Laliberte then agrees that for the period December 14, 2011 to May 2012, Mr. Lemaigre was being supervised at a lower level than he should have been but adds that he was still seeing Mr. Lemaigre twice per month.

He could not recall if there was ever a period when he saw Mr. Lemaigre less than twice per month. [ 76 ] Mr. Laliberte says that the only family violence programming Mr. Lemaigre would have had access to in the community would have been done indirectly with the healing circles at the Clearwater Dene Treatment Centre, although the actual focus of that centre is on drug and alcohol abuse.

The programming available in La Loche is through both the Clearwater Dene Treatment Centre and the La Ronge Health Centre which provides mental health counselling, a men’s wellness centre, anger management programming, and addictions workers. He, however, does say that some family violence programming is available through workshops at the Health Centre. Further, referrals can be made to larger centres for services such as those of psychologists. He also spoke of traditional healing in the community involving Elders, sweat lodges and healing circles.

[ 77 ] When Mr. Laliberte was asked to give a

summary assessment of Mr.

Lemaigre and his ability to manage in the community he responded “... if I was to measure his risk and his development and his involvement in trying to help himself, trying to integrate into the community, if I was to balance ... a majority of his time is attempting to better his situation, not wanting to go back into his cycle of violence or alcoholism ... once he was involved in the trap line, where he had less contact with the victim ... he generally did well ... and I don’t see him as a predator, that is wanting to make contact with Melvina, assaulting anybody, but I think his main problem is alcohol even though he at some point may have struck Melvina without substance ... and when he came into the community and he came in contact with her he knew he was not to have contact with her, he’d be near her, he would attempt to leave right away because he knew he wasn’t supposed to be around her.” Mr.

Laliberte also says Mr. Lemaigre has a special attachment to the north and the trap line, to be close to his family especially his grandchildren and that his support “... is in the north where he belongs”. [ 78 ] Mr. Laliberte also says that he believes from his own experiences that the “guys” involved in the traditional component of healing have the most success. [ 79 ] Mr. Laliberte has always communicated with Mr. Lemaigre in English and experienced no difficulties in that regard. [ 80 ] Mr. Laliberte again states in cross-examination that Mr.

Lemaigre was successful when he was on the trap line, but adds that he would have been back in La Loche sometimes for a week or two, sometimes less. Mr. Lemaigre would also come to La Loche to see Mr. Laliberte. Further, the RCMP at La Loche have told him that for a better part of his release Mr. Lemaigre was compliant with his conditions. Even after the first suspension of Mr. Lemaigre’s Long Term Supervision Order, the RCMP only suggested that Mr.

Lemaigre make every effort to have no contact with Melvina once he returned to the community and continue to report to the RCMP monthly. [ 81 ] In cross-examination Mr. Laliberte was referred to Tab 43, specifically with respect to Mr. Lemaigre’s performance while on supervision. He reported that Mr. Lemaigre was highly manageable in the community; cooperative with police and his Parole Officer; compliant with his correctional plan which included attending at substance abuse counselling and participating in Aboriginal traditional ceremonies. He further reports that since returning to his community Mr.

Lemaigre has been compliant with terms and conditions of his release on a Long Term Sentence Order and was “... seeking personal and emotional development on a daily basis.” Mr. Laliberte explained that the latter clause meant that Mr. Lemaigre wanted to change negative behaviours and deal with them by recognizing his personal and social issues. [ 82 ] Mr. Laliberte again states that Mr. Lemaigre had, while in the community, the support of his family and has friends who live pro-social lifestyles in addition to a lot of community support. [ 83 ] Mr.

Laliberte says that if an offender decided to live at another location, a Community Assessment would be done to determine, among other things, what resources are available for the offender in that community. He also indicated he himself has some awareness of the resources available in Prince Albert. Later, Mr. Laliberte says it might be possible for Mr. Lemaigre to live in Prince Albert, but he does not believe it would work as he would need to go home first to get strong and then decide if he wants to go to Prince Albert. [ 84 ] Mr. Laliberte was asked about his stated opinion that Mr.

Lemaigre was not a “predator”. He responded “... it’s not an issue of violence, it’s an issue of alcohol.” He again offers the opinion that Mr. Lemaigre is manageable in the community as long as he is involved with nature, traditional healing and has communication with Elders. He was not able to say why then Mr. Lemaigre continued to breach his Long Term Supervision Order except that he believed that in a small community, even when Mr. Lemaigre was not trying to have contact with Melvina Lemaigre “...it is not easy to avoid contact and when it happens it is difficult.” He says he has told Mr.

Lemaigre that he is responsible and that he should leave when that happens. [ 85 ] Dr. Lohrasbe was the final witness for the Crown. His Curriculum Vitae is filed as Exhibit P-4 and his report is filed as Exhibit P-5. He was qualified, by consent, as an expert in forensic psychiatry to give an expert opinion on the risk of future violence for an individual and the possibility of eventually controlling that risk in the community, with particular reference to George Lemaigre. Dr. Lohrasbe interviewed Mr. Lemaigre at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary on May 27, 2013. Dr.

Lohrasbe also had access to all the documents and reports now filed as Exhibits P-2 and P-3.

[ 86 ] Dr. Lohrasbe is a forensic psychiatrist and a significant proportion of his work involves the assessment of men who have committed previous violent offences. Dr. Lohrasbe’s report (Exhibit P-4) is comprehensive and specifically provides an opinion with regard to a psychiatric diagnosis (page 12); risk assessment (page 134); treatability (page 19); risk management (page 20); and a

summary (page 21). [ 87 ] Dr. Lohrasbe in his report made the following observations and findings: 1. Mr. Lemaigre became very restrained and defensive when the interview began to focus on his history of violence. 2. He accepts no responsibility for his violence or the harm done especially relating to Melvina and often claims little recollection of what happened. He has no insight into his violence. His persistent denial of responsibility is “especially troubling”. He is unable rather than unwilling to grasp the personal and interpersonal meaning of his violent actions. Dr.

Lohrasbe however later says he has no interest in self-exploration. 3. Some of his lack of recollection may be attributed to his excessive consumption of alcohol. Later, when he is confronted with his criminal record and denies any recollection of violence involving Melvina, Dr. Lohrasbe finds this unconvincing. 4. Any changes he has made with respect to language or education are aimed at “placating the system” and improving his self-esteem and although worthy, have not been used to improve his self-exploration re: his own behaviour. He is incapable of such introspection and insight. 5.

He has relatively mild cognitive limitations. 6. He is diagnosed as an Antisocial Personality Disorder (hereinafter referred to as APD) and this disorder is entrenched and unlikely to change. It is a diagnosis based on behaviour when there is a pattern of law-breaking, aggression, deceitfulness, impulsivity, recklessness, self-centeredness, refusal to take responsibility and a lack of remorse for criminal and violent behaviours. An essential feature of this diagnosis is maladaption , “... a failure of the individual to find a reasonably healthy balance between his own needs and those of others”.

The symptoms occur in the social context and individuals with chronic APD lack insight both with respect to their own self- awareness but also with respect to social judgment. They further also “... tend to misapprehend the motives of others and tend to label others as malevolent”. 7. Age however tends to lessen the overt symptoms of APD and law-breaking and violence tend to decline both in frequency and seriousness and Dr. Lohrasbe suggests that Mr. Lemaigre’s history indicates this has occurred. 8. He however does not suffer from any major mental, mood or anxiety disorder.

There are no manifest overt clinical features of a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. There are no overt manifestations of significant brain damage from a head injury suffered as a teenager. 9. His past history shows parental abuse and neglect especially by his mother, parental alcoholism and violence. Exposure to parental violence is recognized as a major contributor to later spousal violence. 10. He has also been alienated from his cultural and spiritual roots and was raised Catholic. 11.

There was an early onset (from age10) of abuse of alcohol and this distorts the development and maturation of the brain and these are often difficult if not impossible to reverse. He attended school briefly but did not complete Grade 2. As well, he had no other countervailing influences, so the psycho-social impact of the alcohol abuse was accelerated.

12. He places all the responsibility for conflict with Melvina on her. He further now denies that in 2006 it is reported that he had admitted to his violence and jealousy. He agrees only that he is an alcoholic. Dr. Lohrasbe finds this reversal of self-awareness very discouraging and calls his projection of responsibility entrenched. 13. He is unable to provide description or commentary on the nature or impact of therapeutic programmes he has taken. 14.

He has consistently, in previous mental health assessments, been rated as high risk to re-offend and that Melvina or a domestic partner is the most likely victim. 15. He reports that any recent contact with Melvina was unintentional or by accident and often occurred at one of their children’s homes. He reports the contact is immediately hostile because of her attitude. He denies contact with her in spite of the fact he has been sentenced for such a breach more than once. 16.

Alcohol abuse and dependence is a well documented problem and although he claims abstinence since 2000, there was a two day relapse just prior to his arrest in 2012. This has both negative and positive considerations – positive because he is able to be abstinent even while living in La Loche where alcohol misuse appears prevalent and while under minimal supervision but negative in that impulsively he drank again. Dr. Lohrasbe states that if Mr. Lemaigre’s account is accurate this is an important issue for risk management. 17.

His risk for violence was assessed using the SARA guide but also through a clinical assessment of risk. Twenty risk factors are assessed using the SARA guide and a majority of risk factors are present with Mr. Lemaigre and this suggests that there is a high risk for spousal violence in the foreseeable future. However three qualifications need “... to be added to that general statement”.

His spouse is an ex-spouse with whom he has only intermittent, albeit prohibited, contact, there has been a “dramatic decline” in the severity of the spousal violence and finally, he is aging and with age comes a decline in most offenders of several risk factors including the severity and the frequency of the violence. 18. In the clinical formulation of risk, a number of historical factors are relevant in assessment of risk, including his adverse childhood experiences, his criminal record, his prior response to treatment and supervision. The relevant dispositional factor is the diagnosis of APD.

The relevant contextual factors are an unstable intimate relationship, limited employment and social pressures related to alcohol and crime. The relevant immediate clinical factor is his misuse of alcohol even if it was not present in the current offence. 19. He has a broad range of portable (i.e. from situation to situation) risk factors that are “... relatively independent of situational variables or specific interventions”. Risk is highly contextual with Mr. Lemaigre as many of his most serious offences were situational in that they involved intoxication and his spouse as his most frequent victim.

If those two factors were “... absolutely excluded” from his life his risk for violence would likely “... plummet to low levels”. 20. His risk is then reduced by separating him from “... historically known risk situations although it will not necessarily be eliminated, as it is impossible to know whether he is one of those offenders where the risk transfers to other situations or victims.” 21. Although programming such as provided by CSC has salutory effect, its impact fades over time. This is especially the case with offenders, such as Mr.

Lemaigre, who have an “... established, severe” personality disorder and so have greater difficulty integrating the knowledge, self-monitoring and control and will tend to revert to longstanding maladaptive behaviour and patterns. In addition, Mr. Lemaigre’s lack of insight considering not only his age but programming taken is “startling”. It is further “...unreasonable to anticipate significant sustained improvement through further programming and relying on further treatment is futile” (page 20). 22.

Although he has a “rudimentary understanding” of his two most salient risk factors, alcohol intoxication and contact with Melvina, it is presented in a manner that disavows his own role. He sees the focus of control outside himself and cannot identify what he needs to change.

23. “Programs may help with education and self-esteem, but should not be relied on to reduce his risk. Moreover, simply prescribing more programs can mislead those charged with supervising him in the future. Instead, the focus should be on external monitoring and control” (page 20). 24.

With respect to risk management several factors should be considered: Melvina is the “... obvious” victim of further violence, alcohol is both a chronic and acute risk factor and the setting of the community of La Loche further escalates risk in that Melvina lives there, alcohol is freely available, and both his family and friends socialize around alcohol. There are then “... inevitable pressures” to drink and “... inevitable encounters” with Melvina. As a result Mr.

Lemaigre needs far more intensive supervision than he has received in the past and would have to be delivered outside the community of La Loche and he would need “... careful monitoring of his associates, routines, and alcohol consumption”. [ 88 ] Dr. Lohrasbe’s

summary is as follows: In the foreseeable future: A. Mr. Lemaigre continues to [a] harbour a wide range of relevant risk factors and will pose a high risk for spousal violence within certain contexts. B. That contextual risk for violence appears to be declining in frequency and severity. C. It is likely that the risk he poses will continue to decline with age. D. He has poor insight, near-absent acceptance of responsibility, and lacks motivation for treatment. E. Further incarceration for treatment purposes is pointless. F.

To strengthen his desistance from spousal violence if and when he is back in the community, it is desirable to have close monitoring and supervision of [1] abstinence from alcohol; [2] no contact with the most frequent victim of his violence, and [3] his place of residence. G. The more lengthy such monitoring and supervision, the greater the chances of preventing further violence. [ 89 ] In his viva voce evidence, Dr. Lohrasbe stated that he was “... struck” by Mr.

Lemaigre’s lack of awareness of the seriousness of his actions and how serious the justice system takes them, particularly in view of the previous Long Term Offender proceedings. Mr. Lemaigre denies recollection of past violence and has a “... casual and cavalier” attitude towards his past violence. Dr. Lohrasbe was surprised at Mr. Lemaigre’s denial of any recollection of incidents of spousal violence. [ 90 ] When later asked again about Mr. Lemaigre’s lack of recall of episodes of violence, Dr.

Lohrasbe agrees that there could be over time some degrading of memory but that he was struck by the extent of the lack of recall and did not find his denial of recall to be persuasive. [ 91 ] Dr. Lohrasbe also states there are two factors from his childhood that are relevant and these are his feeling of being excluded or different from the rest of the family and the unhappy relationship with his mother as well as the very early onset of alcoholism and the disturbing effect this has on brain maturation in an adolescent. He notes that the latter is likely a factor in Mr. Lemaigre’s lack of motivation to change.

[ 92 ] When asked specifically about the effects of his early poor relationship with his mother and the ability to learn from programming, he says that Mr. Lemaigre is not motivated to or capable of exploring the origins of his anger. Mr. Lemaigre’s self image is that he is a good guy, not a violent person and is simply reacting to provocation from Melvina. However, this early familial rejection would lead to a “... kind of reactive self-absorption which is another way of saying he remains narcissistic”. Dr.

Lohrasbe also adds that people who have been abandoned or rejected in childhood have a potential sense of being owed and not being given their due. The weight of this then typically, in adult life, fall on the partner who can never give enough. This can be changed but Mr. Lemaigre is not motivated to do so as he does not “see” the problem. [ 93 ] Dr. Lohrasbe again stated in his evidence that he does not believe that the intensive external management and supervision Mr. Lemaigre requires can be possible in La Loche because of the “...socio-graphical” realities of that community.

He again reiterates that there should not be a reliance on treatment to significantly reduce Mr. Lemaigre’s risk. [ 94 ] Dr. Lohrasbe notes that high risk is not necessarily unmanageable risk, but the offender must be committed to work with the team who has the responsibility to monitor and supervise him but, since Mr. Lemaigre cannot be relied on to be completely open or honest in his disclosures, the monitoring must be more aggressive and will need to involve a physical separation from Melvina or “... even attending” La Loche. There must also be heavy reliance on the threat of re-arrest. [ 95 ] Dr.

Lohrasbe also again reviewed his formulation of Mr. Lemaigre’s risk to re-offend violently, as was stated in his report and again concluded that it is reasonable to postulate that if alcohol and Melvina are absolutely excluded from his life that his risk to commit further violent offences likely would become low. However, this will not eliminate his risk as entitlement and retaliatory anger may manifest itself even in the absence of those risk factors. He also again restated the opinion that relying on further treatment to reduce risk is futile. [ 96 ] In Mr.

Lemaigre’s case there are things in the spousal relationship that are triggers for him so if these are eliminated, that is, he is kept “... 100%” away from Melvina, his risk would fall “...precipitously”. If another partner is involved , the risk is far less because of the habitual pattern that has been established with Melvina. Although Dr. Lohrasbe cannot exclude the possibility of risk of violence with another partner, there is a greater possibility of bringing the new partner into “... a circle of support, supervision” with no tolerance for any level of violence or aggression. [ 97 ] Dr.

Lohrasbe speaks of Mr. Lemaigre boasting of relationships with other women, he had no sense that Mr. Lemaigre was being cautious in those relationships and relates this in part to his lack of awareness of his risk for violence. [ 98 ] Projection of blame by Mr. Lemaigre is not isolated to Melvina as he is of the view that he was provoked into violence or was mistaken, as in the sexual assault conviction. He continues to disavow any responsibility for his violence. [ 99 ] Dr. Lohrasbe sees alcohol as a continuing risk factor since the use of alcohol increases the likelihood of violence but abstinence alone, in Mr.

Lemaigre’s case, would not be sufficient to protect Melvina. [ 100 ] The fact that Mr. Lemaigre was not attentive to and did not obey release conditions is a risk factor. We should not be confident he will internalize any restrictions placed on him. [ 101 ] When asked to comment on the Parole Officer’s evidence that Mr. Lemaigre was easy to manage in the community, he says that he does not have any details as to the extent of the supervision but noted that one should not have any confidence in Mr. Lemaigre’s reporting because he does not have any real self-awareness that is of value in self-monitoring.

Further, if the person supervising Mr. Lemaigre believes that Melvina is, in part, at fault then there is collusion with Mr. Lemaigre’s perception and does not allow for understanding of where the responsibility for the violence lies. [ 102 ] Dr. Lohrasbe later also addresses Mr. Lemaigre’s reporting about alcohol consumption and states that he is an “... unreliable historian”.

[ 103 ] Dr. Lohrasbe later states, that although the steps Mr. Lemaigre has made towards self-improvement are good, “... we should not be blinded, like for instance people in the community may be blinded, that he’s this pleasant, older guy who’s put the past behind him and there is nothing to be worried about any more”. There is a real danger if those supervising him fail to look at the fact that he is not addressing his risk factors. [ 104 ] With respect to the general principle that violence declines with age, Dr.

Lohrasbe states that the decline is steeper with men who engage in general, that is, not sexual or spousal violence. Further, where there is a more specialized focus of anger or a specialized situation that puts the individual at risk, the decline is not as steep. Later in his evidence Dr. Lohrasbe states that Mr. Lemaigre’s risk for violence is declining because of his age and because his pool of victims has shrunk essentially to Melvina. There however should be no expectation that Mr. Lemaigre will change with respect to his personality disorder. [ 105 ] Dr.

Lohrasbe was asked to comment on the fact that his children were present during the violence in the predicate offence. He stated that there is a concern that the presence of his children did not deter him from the violence but it is also unhealthy for children to be exposed to spousal violence. He notes that children may come to the support of a violent parent in situations of spousal violence as occurred here, for a variety of reasons but it does give feedback that perpetuates the violence. Dr. Lohrasbe notes that any community based supervision of Mr.

Lemaigre should be done without participation of family members. [ 106 ] When addressing avoidance, such as living on the trap line at Ducharme, as a risk management strategy for Mr. Lemaigre, he says that if he is satisfied with the isolation and that lifestyle, he is less likely to be disgruntled and less likely to return to alcohol, but humans are always drawn back to relationships even if they are conflictual. Dr. Lohrasbe questions whether the strong supervision required can be effected in such an isolated place. He also notes that although there is some indication Mr.

Lemaigre would live in Prince Albert, he would need sufficient support or he will be under tremendous strain. [ 107 ] When discussing treatability, Dr. Lohrasbe states that people without significant personality dysfunction can learn from programmes, but people like Mr. Lemaigre with significant personality dysfunction may learn intellectually but will revert to old patterns in real life situations. In Mr. Lemaigre

[…]