R. v. Angivrana, 2022 NUCJ 42

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Angivrana, 2022 NUCJ 42 Date: 20221117 Docket: 23-21-183; 23-22-23 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: His Majesty the King -and- Accused: Nicholai Angivrana __________________________________________________________________ Before: Chief Justice Sharkey Counsel (Crown): Counsel (Accused): G. Wool S. Paddock Location Heard: Date Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut November 1 and November 15, 2022 Matters: Sentencing decision in regards to charges under Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 268 and ss. 264.1(1) (

a) REASONS FOR DECISION (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication) DISCLAIMER PAGE Anonymized Judgment Disclaimer :

This judgment has been anonymized to comply with legislative requirements or at the discretion of the authoring Justice to protect vulnerable parties. Letters have been assigned at random. [ 1 ] Nicholai Angivrana is charged with an aggravated assault upon his female common law partner, WK. He is also charged with threatening to kill her. He is charged as well with a few less serious offenses. [ 2 ] Mr. Angivrana has pleaded guilty to these offences and is before me today to be sentenced.

Two weeks ago, on 01 November, I heard the submissions of Crown and Defence counsel as to what sentence I should impose. [ 3 ] The facts of the aggravated assault in this matter are disturbing in the extreme. [ 4 ] Mr. Angivrana and the victim, WK, had been living together for a couple of years. He was 25 years old, and she was 22 at the time of the assault. [ 5 ] The two of them were drinking. Mr.

Angivrana got drunk and put a serious beating on WK: He picked her up and threw her into an air vent; he hit her in the face and told her she was worthless; he hit her with a laptop; and on several occasions he threatened to kill her if she left him. [ 6 ] The assault took place in their bedroom. WK’s mother heard the commotion and called the RCMP who arrived promptly and

arrested Mr. Angivrana. [ 7 ] Most significantly, however, and while in this drunken rage, Mr. Angivrana used his teeth to actually bite off a large portion of WK’s upper lip. The photos of WK’s lip which were taken by the RCMP are among the most disturbing I have seen in some 13 years on the bench. [ 8 ] WK was medevac’d south and remained in hospital for a month while she underwent several restorative surgeries and received psychiatric care. [ 9 ] The surgery was successful. However, WK will remain permanently scarred both physically and psychologically.

A psychiatrist who interviewed WK post-surgery made note of how she would look down during conversation and cover her lip with her hand. [ 10 ] As the prosecutor so bluntly put it during the sentencing hearing “…this is an injury which will touch WK every day of her life when she looks in the mirror.” [ 11 ] The facts of the threatening charge in this matter are also disturbing. [ 12 ] The assault took place in October of 2021, and Mr. Angivrana was remanded into custody.

While on remand – in March of 2022 – he sent a number of messages to WK blaming her for making his life miserable and threatening to inflict pain and to kill her. [ 13 ] These were not so-called run of the mill threats that we see in many other cases. Rather they were graphic in their intention and execution; at one point Mr. Angivrana said he would find a third party to make WK’s life miserable. [ 14 ] In addition to the able submissions of counsel I have had the benefit of both a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and a Psychological Report to assist me in assessing the appropriate penalty in this case. [ 15 ] Mr.

Angivrana has been in custody from the time of his arrest on 16 October 2021. He is now 26 years old. He had a difficult childhood and witnessed much domestic violence in the home as his father abused his mother. His father died last year. [ 16 ] Mr. Angivrana was put into foster care and sent to an institution in Saskatchewan between the ages of 11 and 15. He says that he lost his Inuit language as a result of this placement. Upon return to his community Mr. Angivrana lived with his mother with whom counsel tells me things were strained – although Mr.

Angivrana told the author of the PSR that he gets along well with his mother. [ 17 ] Mr. Angivrana has never experienced any time in traditional activities on the land. He went as far as grade 10 (albeit by simply being ‘passed’ each year). He became addicted, he says, to marijuana in his teens. [ 18 ] The psychological report filed with the court says that no formal diagnosis of ADHD was ever in Mr. Angivrana’s case.

He has, however, been taking medications for people afflicted with this condition since his childhood. [ 19 ] Similarly, since FASD requires such a diagnosis be made by an MD the psychological report cannot say whether Mr. Angivrana suffers from FASD. And since his mother refused to be interviewed such a diagnosis might not be possible anyway. Nonetheless the report concludes there are some indicators that FASD might possibly prevail. [ 20 ] Mr. Angivrana scores extremely low on the intelligence and many other scales.

At the same time the psychological report concludes that while some cognitive delays are indicated, it is likely that Mr. Angivrana does not have an intellectual disability. [ 21 ] Mr. Angivrana told the probation officer who made the PSR that he had only attempted suicide on one occasion, but the psychological report documents a number of such attempts between the ages of 13 and 21. [ 22 ] Mr. Angivrana has never held a full-time job in the wage economy - in large part, as the prosecutor suggests, because he is known in the community as a thief.

This is evidenced by his extensive and continuing criminal record of property related offences such as break and entry and theft. He has received numerous jail terms of between 60 days and 6 months for these convictions which cover his entire adult life. [ 23 ] Significantly, however, Mr. Angivrana’s criminal record also includes a recent conviction - in January of 2021 - for an offence of choking WK, for which he received 6 months in jail and was placed on probation for 1 year. And so, Mr.

Angivrana was on probation at the time he committed the aggravated assault for which he is to be sentenced today. [ 24 ] Defence counsel points out that during his remand Mr. Angivrana spent some 6-8 weeks in COVID isolation with 4-6 other individuals; this was a very strict lockdown for 23 hours a day. Counsel reminds me it was during this obviously stressful time that Mr. Angivrana wrote his threatening notes to WK. [ 25 ] Counsel also tells me that Mr. Angivrana has had considerable time to reflect upon the crimes he has committed.

And that he has gained insight into the harm he has inflicted upon WK and is determined to continue with counselling to prevent any recurrence of this type of behavior. [ 26 ] The seriousness of the offence – of aggravated assault itself – is at the higher end of the sentencing scale. Similarly, Mr. Angivrana’s degree of culpability is also high. [ 27 ] The viciousness of biting off a portion of WK’s upper lip – albeit that Mr. Angivrana was drunk and admits to no memory of the attack – is an obvious aggravating feature in this case. [ 28 ] It is also aggravating that Mr.

Angivrana had been convicted of choking WK only ten months previously and was on probation at the time of the offence.

[ 29 ] In addition, it is statutorily aggravating that WK was an intimate partner. [ 30 ] There is little in mitigation in this case beyond the pleas of guilty – albeit given Mr. Angivrana’s position that he remembers nothing of the incident, I do give him credit for saving WK the additional pain of reliving her ordeal in court. [ 31 ] I am mindful of sections 718.04 and 718.201 of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46 ( Code ) as these provisions are designed to protect indigenous women, and particularly intimate partner victims, from violence which disproportionately affects them.

Thus – and counsel agree – the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence are of prime importance in this case. [ 32 ] I must also – since Mr. Angivrana is an indigenous offender – apply the spirit of section 718 (2) (

e) of the Code as this remedial provision has been interpreted and courts given guidance by our Supreme Court in the cases of Gladue & Ipeelie . I must individualize the sentence with a view to Mr. Angivrana’s rehabilitation. [ 33 ] With all of this in mind, the Crown suggests a global sentence of 6 years (less time spent on remand at a ratio 1.5 days to 1). The Defence suggests a global sentence of 4.5 years (less remand time) as the least restrictive term which will also satisfy the necessary sentencing objectives and allow Mr.

Angivrana to take advantage of programming in the federal system. [ 34 ] I have decided upon a global sentence of 5 years. Mr. Angivrana has spent 1 year in custody so he will be allotted remand credit for roughly 1 and ½ years. This means he will still have approximately 3 and ½ years to spend in custody. [ 35 ] More precisely I have allocated the sentences to the individual offences charged as follows: [ 36 ] On Information #183 1. Count # 1 – Aggravated Assault: 3.5 years jail (42 months or 1,260 days) 2.

Count # 2 – Threatening: 6 months jail (180 days concurrent with 1,260 days on Count #1, so the total so far is still 1,260 days) 3. Count # 3 – Assault on Peace Officer: 6 months jail (180 days consecutive to Count #1, so the total so far is now 1,440 days) 4. Count # 4 – Criminal Mischief (damage): 4 months jail (120 days concurrent with Count #1 (so the total so far is still 1,440 days) [ 37 ] On Information #23 1. Count #2 – Threatening: 1 year jail (12 months or 360 days consecutive to Information # 183, so the total now is 1,800 days) 2.

Count #3 – Breach of Bail: 6 months jail (180 days concurrent with Information # 183, so the total is still 1,800 days) [ 38 ] This five year sentence is 60 months jail, which according to correctional computations is 1,800 days. [ 39 ] Mr. Angivrana spent 391 days in custody between October 21, 2021 and November 15, 2022. Thus, he is entitled to 587 days of remand credit. [ 40 ] Thus, starting today Mr. Angivrana will have 1,213 days to serve - which is 3.4 years. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 15th day of November, 2022 ___________________ Chief Justice N. Sharkey Nunavut Court of Justice