R v. St, 2020 QCCQ 973

R. c. Guilbeault 2020 QCCQ 973 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal Division N os : 500-01-146506-164 500-01-152307-176 500-01-148962-175 500-01-146666-166 DATE: March 4, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE HÉBERT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PROSECUTOR v. Stéphane GUILBEAULT ACCUSED ______________________________________________________________________ DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A FINDING THAT MR.

GUILBEAULT IS A DANGEROUS OFFENDER AND ON SENTENCING _____________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] In June 2013, Mr. Guilbeault was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for aggravated assault. He was also designated a long- term offender and a long-term surveillance order (“LSO”) was imposed for an additional five years. [ 2 ] In July 2016, the LSO began. Residing at a Correctional Community Center (“CCC”) and returning there every night was one of his surveillance conditions. In September 2016, Mr. Guilbeault failed to return to the CCC by curfew.

A warrant for his arrest was issued. [ 3 ] A month later, Mr. Guilbeault assaulted a former girlfriend with a weapon and stole her car. The next day, he was arrested at the wheel of the stolen car, after committing numerous offenses. At the time of his arrest, drugs were found on him and he had been illegally at large for a month. [ 4 ] Mr. Guilbeault pled guilty to the following offenses: assaulting his former girlfriend with a weapon, stealing her car and possessing drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Court found him guilty of the following offenses: one count for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; two counts for his failure to stop at the scene of an accident; one count for fleeing while being pursued by a police officer; one count of assault with a weapon against a police officer; one count of assault with a weapon and one count for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his or her duties.

The Court also found him guilty of breaching the conditions of his LSO because he did not return to the CCC and because he did not obey the law and keep the peace. [ 5 ] The Court must now sentence Mr. Guilbeault for all of these offenses. The Prosecution is asking the Court to designate Mr. Guilbeault as a dangerous offender and to sentence him to an indeterminate detention period. The Prosecution’s position relies on the expert opinion of Dr. Morissette, a forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Morissette’s conclusions are twofold: Mr.

Guilbeault is at high risk of reoffending by committing a violent crime; and, the risk posed by Mr. Guilbeault cannot be managed in the community.

[ 6 ] The Defence is asking the Court to designate Mr. Guilbeault as a long-term offender, to sentence him to a total imprisonment of six years, less the preventive custody of a little over five years [1] , and to impose a LSO for an additional five-year period. The Defence’s position relies on the expert opinion of Dr. Stephenson, a forensic psychologist. Dr. Stephenson’s conclusions are twofold: Mr.

Guilbeault is at high risk of reoffending by committing a violent crime; but, this risk can be managed in the community. [ 7 ] The Criminal Code provisions relating to dangerous offenders “authorize the most extreme and clearest form of preventive sentence that can be imposed” [2] : indeterminate detention. In doing so, these provisions aim to protect “the public from a small group of persistent criminals with a propensity for committing violent crimes against the person” [3] . [ 8 ] The designation of a dangerous offender requires a two-stage analysis process.

The first stage aims at deciding if the offender should be designated as such. The second stage is concerned with sentencing. The dangerous offender provisions only apply to some of the offenses committed by Mr. Guilbeault. Regular sentencing principles apply to the others. [ 9 ] Thus, in sentencing Mr. Guilbeault, the Court must decide the following questions:

(1) Should Mr. Guilbeault be designated a dangerous offender?

(2) If so, should Mr. Guilbeault be sentenced to an indeterminate detention period?

(3) What should be the sentence for the offenses to which the dangerous offender provisions do not apply? [ 10 ] The Court designates Mr. Guilbeault as a dangerous offender and sentences him to an indeterminate detention period. As for the offenses to which the dangerous offender provisions do not apply, Mr. Guilbeault has served his time. ANALYSIS Question 1 : Should Mr.

Guilbeault be designated as a dangerous offender? [ 11 ] The Criminal Code provisions relating to dangerous offenders contemplate two categories of dangerousness: one that results from violent behavior and one that results from sexual behavior [4] . Only the violent behavior is at issue in Mr. Guilbeault’s case. [ 12 ] The Prosecution must prove two elements for the Court to designate Mr. Guilbeault as a dangerous offender. First, it must show that at least one of the offenses for which Mr. Guilbeault is being sentenced is “a serious personal injury offense” [5] . [ 13 ] The following offenses committed by Mr.

Guilbeault are serious personal injury offenses: assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend; [6] assault with a weapon against a police officer, Sergent Marinier [7] ; and, assault with a weapon against Agent Vaillancourt [8] . Thus, the Prosecution has proven the first element in relation to these three offenses. [ 14 ] Second, the Prosecution must show that Mr. Guilbeault represents “a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons”.

This is called the “threat assessment” and requires the Court to consider whether the evidence establishes one of the following three violent patterns of conduct: • a pattern of repetitive behavior by Mr. Guilbeault, of which the serious personal injury offenses for which he is being sentenced form part, showing a failure to restrain his behavior and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his behavior; • a pattern of persistent aggressive behavior by Mr.

Guilbeault, of which the serious personal injury offenses for which he is being sentenced form part, showing a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behavior to other persons; or, • any behavior by Mr. Guilbeault, associated with the offenses for which he has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that his future behavior is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioral restraint [9] . [ 15 ] These paragraphs provide for three criteria: (1) that the “serious personal injury offenses” committed by Mr.

Guilbeault are part of a broader violence pattern; (2) that there is a likelihood that Mr. Guilbeault will reoffend and in doing so will endanger the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons; and, (3) that Mr. Guilbeault’s violent conduct is intractable. Intractable means a behavior that Mr. Guilbeault cannot surmount [10] . [ 16 ] While the analysis of past behavior is relevant, it must be future-oriented. It is aimed at assessing the future threat posed by Mr. Guilbeault. Expert evidence must also be future-oriented.

It is aimed at providing information on prospective aspect of dangerousness such as risk factors, probabilities of reoffense and treatment prospects [11] . [ 17 ] To carry out the analysis of these three criteria, the Court will address the evidence in the following order: • first, the evidence of Mr. Guilbeault’s past behavior and attitude; • second, the expert evidence relating to the risk that Mr. Guilbeault will reoffend by committing a violent offense; • third, the expert evidence relating to future treatment prospects; and, • fourth, the character evidence presented by Mr. Guilbeault.

(

i) Evidence of past behavior and attitude [ 18 ] The serious personal injury offenses committed by Mr. Guilbeault are part of a broader violent pattern that began when he was young. This pattern shows that Mr. Guilbeault has a tendency to perceive his environment as being hostile, has difficulty managing his emotions and reacts with impulsivity and aggressiveness. He has limited introspection capacities, no empathy for his victims and as a result, easily justifies the use of violence or blames others for his actions. The relevant evidence is summarised below. Childhood and adolescence [ 19 ] The childhood of Mr.

Guilbeault was difficult. He grew up with his mother, who was battling with mental health issues and who was involved in an abusive relationship. As a result, Mr. Guilbeault was subjected to violence, abuse and neglect as a child [...] [12] . [ 20 ] Mr. Guilbeault’s sister, who was 10 years older, described the home environment as being unbearable at times. On one occasion, the violence directed at her mother was so bad that she left the house in her pyjamas to get help [13] . [ 21 ] School was difficult for Mr. Guilbeault because he was a victim of intimidation.

He had to fight with other students in order to gain the respect of his peers [14] . In sixth grade, his situation worsened. He blamed his teacher for this, saying that she was unreasonably strict with him and that she made sure that he would not be accepted in a Westmount high school [15] . [ 22 ] In high school, he continued fighting with other students to gain the respect of his peers. As a result of his behavior, he had to change school on six occasions.

At that point in his life, violence had become a tool that he used to increase his status and to resolve his problems [16] . [ 23 ] He began smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol when he was in his early teens [17] . He quit school when he was 15, having completed his second year of high school [18] . Between the ages of 15 and 18, he worked sporadically. He adopted a hedonistic lifestyle, surrounding himself with peers who had a negative influence on him. He also adopted lax values that brought him to delinquency [19] . [ 24 ] His juvenile record begins in February 2008, when he was 15.

He was sentenced to a six-month probation order for theft. In November 2008, when he was 16, he was sentenced to a six-month probation order for assault. A month later, in December 2008, he was sentenced to a nine-month probation order for having uttered threats. A few months later, he was sentence to a one-year probation order for robbery and possession of drugs [20] . Throughout these years, he completed an Anger Replacement Training Program offered through a Youth Center on two occasions [21] . [ 25 ] In January 2010, when he was 17, Mr.

Guilbeault attended the emergency of the Douglas Hospital because he had hallucinations. He was prescribed medication and released from the hospital. In July 2010, he again attended the Douglas Hospital [22] . Designation as a long-term offender [ 26 ] In December 2010, two months after turning 18, Mr. Guilbeault stabbed a young man in the neck in a metro station, just after midnight. This was an unprovoked incident involving a very high degree of violence on an unknown victim. He was charged with aggravated assault [23] . [ 27 ] Bail was refused and Mr.

Guilbeault was detained at the Rivière-des-Prairies Detention Centre (“RDP”) [24] . At RDP, he was the subject of nine incident reports involving either violence or the possession of homemade weapons or alcohol. He followed 10 of the 12 sessions of the program called “Vivre sans violence” [25] . [ 28 ] In February 2012, Mr. Guilbeault was sentenced to nine months of detention after having pled guilty to a robbery and a conspiracy to commit a theft in relation to events that occurred before his arrest in December 2010 [26] . [ 29 ] In March 2012, Mr.

Guilbeault pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault in relation to the 2010 stabbing [27] . In the sentencing process, the psychologist Dr. Éric Bergeron [28] and the forensic psychiatrist Dr. France Proulx [29] assessed Mr. Guilbeault. [ 30 ] The observations of Dr. Bergeron and Dr. Proulx can be summarised as follows: • Mr.

Guilbeault has no support system; his family is not able to support and supervise him and his social network consists of individuals with criminal records; • he is immature and centered on himself; he has a tendency to perceive his environment as being hostile and to react with impulsivity and aggressiveness; • he has difficulty managing his emotions, has limited introspection capacities and a problem accepting authority; • he has no empathy for his victims; he easily justifies his use of violence; he blames others for his behavior and refuses to assume responsibility for his actions; and, • while violence is an instrument that he uses to dominate others, he does not consider himself as a violent person. [ 31 ] Dr.

Bergeron and Dr. Proulx concluded that there was a high risk that Mr. Guilbeault would reoffend by committing a violent offense, relying on the following: • Mr. Guilbeault had an antisocial personality disorder; • using the Psychopathy Check List Revised (PCL-R), Dr. Bergeron concluded that Mr. Guilbeault was at the lower limit of the psychopathic personality while Dr. Proulx concluded that he was in the upper limit of a mix personality;

• using the actuarial risk assessment tools (HCR-20 and VRAG), both concluded that Mr. Guilbeault belonged to a category of offenders who are at high risk of violent recidivism; and, • both concluded that Mr. Guilbeault had personal characteristics that made him more likely to commit violent crimes in the future including: his difficulty to manage his emotions, his limited introspection capacities and his need to impose respect when interacting with others. [ 32 ] Dr. Proulx noted that Mr.

Guilbeault showed a certain openness to treatment but could not exclude the possibility that this was utilitarian given the pending court proceedings. She expressed the opinion that Mr. Guilbeault could, because of his young age, be able to adjust his value system and improve his capacity to manage his emotions. As a result, Dr. Proulx concluded that Mr. Guilbeault posed a high risk of violent recidivism, but that this risk could be managed in the community if Mr. Guilbeault was properly supervised. [ 33 ] Relying on the opinion of Dr. Proulx, the Prosecution asked that Mr.

Guilbeault be designated as a long-term offender [30] . Mr. Guilbeault was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for the aggravated assault [31] . He was designated a long-term offender and an LSO was imposed for an additional five years [32] . Detention after the designation as a long-term offender [ 34 ] Mr. Guilbeault was sent to the Regional Reception Center for assessment by the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”). [ 35 ] Alain Mongeon, a psychologist, met with Mr. Guilbeault, to carry out a psychological assessment [33] . He diagnosed Mr.

Guilbeault with an antisocial personality disorder, with paranoid and schizotypal traits. Mr. Guilbeault had all of the characteristics associated with the antisocial personality disorder: (1) failure to conform to social norms; (2) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; (3) irritability and aggressiveness; (4) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; and, (5) lack of remorse. [ 36 ] Mr. Mongeon concluded that the risk that Mr. Guilbeault would reoffend by committing a violent offense was high. Violence was deeply anchored in Mr. Guilbeault’s personality.

It was used as an emotional response and an instrument to achieve a wanted result. Thus, intensive corrective intervention was necessary in order for Mr. Guilbeault to integrate prosocial values. In that respect, Mr. Mongeon noted that Mr. Guilbeault did not consider himself a violent person. Mr. Guilbeault considered that what he had done was stupid. He wanted to get out of prison as soon as possible and did not need help. [ 37 ] In October 2013, a report identifying Mr. Guilbeault’s criminogenic factors was prepared [34] . According to this report, the need for intervention was high but Mr.

Guilbeault’s motivation was low. Mr. Guilbeault again denied having a problem and needing intervention. [ 38 ] Mr. Guilbeault was assigned a maximum security classification. He was sent to the Donnacona Penitentiary, a maximum security institution [35] . [ 39 ] In early November 2013, a correctional plan was prepared [36] . The plan provided the following information: • it identified the main factors contributing to Mr.

Guilbeault’s criminality as follows: his poor emotions management; his impulsivity; his lack of insight; his criminal values; his tendency to perceive the world as hostile; and, his tendency to rationalise violence as a mean of defence; • it identified the need for Mr. Guilbeault to take responsibility for his actions, to begin questioning his behavior, to show openness to intervention and motivation to change; and, • It identified the need for Mr. Guilbeault to participate in the High Intensity Violence Prevention Program but noted that Mr.

Guilbeault lacked motivation. [ 40 ] Throughout his first year and a half in detention, Mr. Guilbeault refused to commit to his correctional plan. He was not open to intervention; he was not motivated to change his personal and emotional orientation nor his attitude [37] . He was also sanctioned for fighting with other inmates and for various other incidents, such as refusing to obey orders, damaging property, having in his possession a homemade shiv, simulating a fight with another inmate etc. [38] [ 41 ] In October 2014, an assessment of Mr. Guilbeault’s case was prepared. The prognosis was grim given that Mr.

Guilbeault had refused to commit to his correctional plan and had not modified his behavioral pattern [39] . [ 42 ] Relying on this assessment, the Correction Intervention Committee recommended that Mr. Guilbeault remain detained during his statutory release. The Committee was of the opinion that Mr. Guilbeault was likely to commit an offense causing death or serious harm to another person before the expiration of his sentence. However, jurisdiction to oppose his statutory release was lost in the process [40] . [ 43 ] In January 2015, approximately six months before his statutory release, Mr.

Guilbeault’s behavior and attitude changed. He became involved in his correctional plan and showed an openness to intervention. Between January and April 2015, he was not sanctioned by the correctional authorities. By April 2015, he had successfully completed the Integrated Correctional Program Model – Primer and had begun the High Intensity Multi-Target Program offered by the CSC [41] .

In short, as soon as his behavior and attitude improved, he was given a chance to participate in a treatment program. [ 44 ] The timing of this sudden change in behavior and attitude led his case management team to question whether it was genuine or whether it was just a strategy to avoid detention during his statutory release [42] . [ 45 ] In May 2015, the Correction Intervention Committee reiterated its recommendation that Mr. Guilbeault remain in detention during his statutory release. The Committee was still of the opinion that Mr.

Guilbeault was likely to commit an offense causing death or serious harm to another person before the expiration of his sentence [43] . This recommendation was not followed [44] .

Release from detention [ 46 ] In June 2015, Mr. Guilbeault was granted statutory release with various conditions, including the obligation to live in a Correctional Community Center (“CCC”) and return there every night and the obligation to participate in psychological counselling [45] . [ 47 ] The Parole Board deemed these conditions necessary because Mr.

Guilbeault was not invested in his correctional plan; he showed a minimal degree of cooperation with his case management team; he did not make meaningful progress toward understanding his criminality and identifying strategies to minimise his propensity to use violence; and, his incarceration had no apparent deterrent effect on him [46] . [ 48 ] In October 2015, Mr. Guilbeault’s case management team noted that his integration in a CCC had led to a positive change in his attitude. A new correction plan was prepared [47] . [ 49 ] In November 2015, the Parole Board noted that Mr. Guilbeault had made progress.

He was involved in his correctional plan; he was better at managing his emotions; he had an understanding of his risks factors and his cycle of delinquency; he had reconnected with his family; and, he was employed. The Board modified Mr. Guilbeault’s conditions and granted him leave privileges from the CCC [48] . [ 50 ] Less than two months later, in January 2016, Mr. Guilbeault failed to comply with his leave privileges. A warrant for his arrest was issued and he turned himself in eight days later [49] . While being illegally at large, Mr.

Guilbeault went to a girlfriend’s house and attacked a man that was in her apartment. He was charged and the case is still pending [50] . [ 51 ] In February 2016, Mr. Guilbeault’s case management team concluded that he was still unable to properly manage his emotions even if he had changed his attitude; he was actively participating in meetings with his probation officer; he was showing motivation toward achieving his goals; and, he was taking concrete actions in this regard.

His decision not to abide by the conditions of his statutory release revealed his lack of maturity and his tendency to act on impulsion [51] . [ 52 ] In April 2016, the Parole Board revoked Mr. Guilbeault’s statutory release and discharged him with stricter conditions, including the obligation to live in a CCC and return there every night [52] . A month later, Mr. Guilbeault integrated a new CCC [53] . [ 53 ] In May 2016, Mr. Guilbeault saw his doctor. He was feeling anxious and had trouble sleeping.

His doctor prescribed medical cannabis to help him manage his anxiety and his sleep [54] . [ 54 ] In July 2016, Mr. Guilbeault had served his sentence. His long-term supervision began. His conditions included residing at a CCC and returning there every night [55] . Mr. Guilbeault initially complied with his conditions but his behavior began to deteriorate in August 2016, with, amongst other things, late arrivals at the CCC. At the same time, Mr.

Guilbeault advised his case management team that he had been having auditory hallucinations for a few years and that he had recently self-harmed to manage his anxiety [56] . On August 30, 2016, Mr. Guilbeault consulted a psychiatrist at the St-Mary’s Hospital in relation to his hallucinations [57] . [ 55 ] A few days before September 24, 2016, Mr. Guilbeault stopped using medical cannabis on a doctor’s recommendation. That doctor prescribed new medication to Mr. Guilbeault: Ativan and Abilify. According to Mr.

Guilbeault, this new medication caused important side effects: he could not sleep well, he became agitated and irritable [58] . Commission of the offenses [ 56 ] On September 24, 2016, Mr. Guilbeault failed to return to the CCC by curfew. A warrant for his arrest was issued [59] . [ 57 ] A month later, on October 25, 2016, Mr. Guilbeault assaulted a former girlfriend with a weapon and stole her car. [ 58 ] The next day, on October 26, 2016, Agent Bergeron and his partner were dispatched to intercept the stolen car, which was stopped in an alley beside an apartment building.

Agent Bergeron placed his police car behind the stolen car and told the driver and the passenger to get out of the stolen car. [ 59 ] Mr. Guilbeault, who was driving the stolen car, did not obey the order. Instead he sped off toward the back of the building and turned into a parking lot where he hit two parked cars. He then turned into another alley, hoping to reach the street and flee. [ 60 ] Agent Vaillancourt, who had stopped her unmarked police car in the alley, was blocking Mr. Guilbeault’s escape route.

Sergent Marinier, a police officer in plain clothes got caught between Agent’s Vaillancourt’s car and the stolen car. [ 61 ] The fact that a man and car were in his way did not stop Mr. Guilbeault. Instead, he drove at full speed toward Agent Vaillancourt’s car. Sergent Marinier saw the stolen car coming toward him and feared for his life. He fired his weapon aiming at one of the tires of the stolen car but unbeknown to him, he shot the passenger of the car. [ 62 ] Mr. Guilbeault reached the street and drove off. Agent Bergeron chased the stolen car.

The chase only ended when Agent Bergeron collided with the stolen car. Mr. Guilbeault was arrested. Cocaine and hashish were found on him. At that time, he had been illegally at large for a month. Detention after the commission of the offenses [ 63 ] After his arrest, Mr. Guilbeault was sent to the Archambault Penitentiary. Ms. Chrétien, a psychologist, met with him. He denied having auditory hallucinations and refused medication. They met on regular basis. No signs of psychosis were noted [60] . [ 64 ] In December 2016, Mr. Guilbeault’s case management team prepared a new correctional plan.

The need for intervention was assessed as being high but Mr. Guilbeault’s motivation was assessed as being low [61] .

[ 65 ] In January 2017, Mr. Guilbeault’s mental health was stable. He told Ms. Chrétien that a change in his medication, in September 2016, had brought on various symptoms. For instance, he had trouble sleeping and he was more agitated and irritable. He expressed his conviction that the change in his medication was responsible for his re-incarceration [62] . [ 66 ] Mr. Guilbeault’s attitude and behavior was still problematic.

While incarcerated at the Archambault Penitentiary, between October 31, 2016 and May 3, 2017, he was sanctioned for various incidents including smoking in his cell [63] ; delaying an official count [64] ; having an intoxicating substance [65] ; refusing a urine test [66] ; having a shank and a lighter in his possession [67] ; and, having hashish in his possession [68] . [ 67 ] In May 2017, Mr. Guilbeault was transferred to the Donnacona Penitentiary [69] . Later that month, Mr. Guilbeault was attacked by two inmates [70] . He was escorted to the infirmary where a homemade shiv was found in his clothes [71] .

A month later, he was involved in an incident during which he allegedly assaulted two correctional officers. He was charged in relation to this event and the case is still pending [72] . [ 68 ] In November 2017, the unit in which Mr. Guilbeault was detained at the Donnacona Penitentiary was closed. Security concerns prevented Mr. Guilbeault from integrating the general population. He was placed in protective administrative segregation. This led to a deterioration of his mental health [73] . [ 69 ] In early January 2018, a transfer to the Kent Penitentiary was considered because Mr.

Guilbeault could not integrate the general population of any penitentiary located in Quebec. However, such a transfer would have to wait given that Mr. Guilbeault had pending proceedings in Quebec. Thus, other options had to be considered to stabilize his deteriorating mental health [74] . [ 70 ] In February 2018, Mr. Guilbeault’s case management team suggested a transfer to the Regional Mental Health Centre (“RMHC”) and Mr. Guilbeault agreed. In the following days, he was transferred to the RMHC [75] . [ 71 ] The RMHC is located in a separate unit of the Archambault Penitentiary.

It offers specialized assessment and treatment services to inmates. It aims at helping them find optimal mental health and developing their skills for a successful reintegration into society. The inmates work with an interdisciplinary team that includes a psychiatrist; a psychologist; a nurse; a psycho-educator; a probation officer; and, a correction officer [76] . [ 72 ] Upon his arrival at the RMHC, Mr. Guilbeault had a vengeful attitude toward authority figures. His case management team considered the possibility of discharging him from the RMHC. The day after being advised of his possible discharge, Mr.

Guilbeault refused to comply with a request from a correctional officer. This led to his discharge from the RMHC on April 11, 2018 [77] . [ 73 ] A few days later, Mr. Guilbeault fought with a fellow inmate. He was placed in administrative segregation in the Acute Care Unit of the RMHC as his mental health deteriorated. Mr. Guilbeault did not want to return to the Donnacona Penitentiary and his upcoming transfer generated anxiety which contributed to his destabilization. Mr. Guilbeault reported auditory hallucinations and revealed that he had self-armed two weeks earlier [78] . [ 74 ] Mr.

Guilbeault’s case management team decided to postpone his transfer from the RMHC. Mr. Guilbeault received a psychological and psycho-educational follow-up on a weekly basis, to which he collaborated [79] . [ 75 ] In June 2018, Mr. Guilbeault was offered the possibility of joining a regular unit at the RMHC pending the end of his legal proceedings in Quebec. The offer was conditional upon him agreeing to sign a behavior contract. Breaching the contract meant that he would be transferred to the Donnacona Penitentiary. Mr. Guilbeault accepted the offer and signed the contract [80] . [ 76 ] Within a week, Mr.

Guilbeault was fully reintegrated into his unit. He collaborated with his case management team and respected his pharmacological treatment. As a result, his mental health improved [81] . [ 77 ] In the following weeks, Mr. Guilbeault improved his behavior. He no longer exhibited antisocial attitudes; he complied with his behavioral plan; he abided by the RMHC rules; he was not involved in illicit behavior; and, he showed a willingness to work on his perceptions and his cognitive distortions [82] . His case management team decided to cancel his discharge from the RMHC [83] . [ 78 ] While at the RMHC, Mr.

Guilbeault continued his education; [84] participated in a talent show; [85] and completed the following three clinical activities: Mindfulness Meditation [86] , Motivation to Change [87] , and, Tolerance to Distress [88] . Ms. Hénault, a psycho- educator at the RMHC, testified that Mr. Guilbeault was involved in his follow-up. He shared his emotions with her and began using strategies to manage them. With time, he became willing to discuss and reassessed his perceptions. Anxiety was an issue on which they were also working [89] . [ 79 ] In June 2019, Mr.

Guilbeault was suspected of being involved in contraband and of uttering threats to other inmates. The information came from different informants [90] . Mr. Guilbeault was discharged from the RMHC and placed in a different unit while a transfer to the Port-Cartier Penitentiary was considered [91] . Shortly thereafter, Mr. Guilbeault made a suicide attempt. His case management team decided to keep him at the RMHC until his mental health stabilized. Mr. Guilbeault spent a few months in the acute care unit at the RMHC [92] . [ 80 ] At the end of September 2019, Mr.

Guilbeault was allowed to reintegrate a regular unit at the RMHC, as he no longer posed a security risk [93] . For the next two months and a half, Mr. Guilbeault adopted a conformist attitude and behavior. This ended in December 2019, when he was involved in a fight with an inmate and assaulted other inmates who tried to intervene. One of the inmates had a broken nose while the other had a concussion. Mr. Guilbeault was discharged from the RMHC, as it was assessed that he posed a security risk to the other inmates [94] . [ 81 ] Mr. Guilbeault’s case was reviewed. The assessment report concluded that Mr.

Guilbeault had not changed, despite the fact that he had expressed a motivation to change and despite the numerous interventions of his case management team. Mr. Guilbeault was transferred from the RMHC to the Regional Reception Centre, as he could not be transferred to the Donnacona or the Port-Cartier

penitentiaries [95] . (ii) Expert evidence on the risk that Mr. Guilbeault will reoffend [ 82 ] Dr. Morissette is the expert who was assigned to perform the Court ordered assessment of Mr. Guilbeault [96] while Dr. Stephenson is the expert who was retained by the Defence [97] . Both experts have the same opinion: the risk that Mr. Guilbeault will reoffend by committing a violent offense is high. However, their opinions differ on other relevant issues. The opinion expressed by Dr. Morissette was neither undermined nor weaken by his cross-examination.

The same cannot be said for some of the conclusions reached by Dr. Stephenson. The opinion of Dr. Morissette [ 83 ] Dr. Morissette is a forensic psychiatrist who has worked at Pinel since 1983. He has performed 115 court-ordered assessments aimed at determining if an offender should be designated a long-term offender or a dangerous offender. [ 84 ] In August 2017, he met Mr. Guilbeault for approximately 90 minutes. Usually, a second meeting is held to complete the assessment. However, when Mr. Guilbeault was brought for that second meeting, he refused to meet Dr. Morissette. This is rare.

Out of the 115 assessments performed by Dr. Morissette, only four other offenders refused to meet with him. Dr. Morissette testified that he had sufficient information to perform his assessment even if the second meeting was not held. Dr. Morissette’s testimony in this regard was convincing and the Court finds that there is no reason to doubt the accuracy or the comprehensiveness of his opinion on that basis. [ 85 ] During his meeting with Dr. Morissette, Mr.

Guilbeault provided the following explanations for his actions: • he did not return to the CCC because he felt that he was young, that he needed to live and because he had never been to a strip club; • his failure to return to the CCC on September 24, 2016 was caused by a change in his medication; he did not tolerate the new medication (Abilify) that his doctor had prescribed three days earlier; he was also experiencing withdrawal symptoms as he had stopped using medicinal cannabis; • he was not trying to escape police; he did not see police officers; he did not stop the car because he did not know how; he had never driven a car before; • in describing the events, he showed no concern for his passenger’s health even though his passenger was shot. [ 86 ] According to Dr.

Morissette, Mr. Guilbeault’s decision to leave the CCC on September 24, 2016 cannot be explained by the withdrawal symptoms associated to cannabis nor by the side effects of the new medication that Mr. Guilbeault was taking (Abilify) for the following reasons: • cannabis has a long half-life; once a person stops using, the level of cannabis in his blood lowers progressively; this is why withdrawal symptoms do not appear immediately, as the body is still eliminating cannabis; Mr.

Guilbeault stated having stopped using cannabis approximately three to four days before deciding not to come back to the CCC; three to four days is too short of a period for withdrawal symptoms to be present; • moreover, withdrawal symptoms associated with stopping cannabis are light physical symptoms, similar to those of a cold; these symptoms include fatigue, congestion and discomfort; since 2013, the Diagnosis and Statistical Manuel (DSM) recognises the cannabis withdrawal syndrome; cannabis withdrawal syndrome can be diagnosed, but it cannot be treated given the nature and lightness of its symptoms; in this respect, cannabis withdrawal cannot be compared to alcohol or opioid withdrawal; that being said, it is normal for someone experiencing cannabis withdrawal to crave cannabis and thus, to experience psychological unease when unable to procure cannabis; according to Dr.

Morissette, this is what occurred in Mr. Guilbeault’s case; and, • finally, the known side effect of Abilify is restlessness; while restlessness can bring someone to try to escape confinement, it cannot explain Mr. Guilbeault’s failure to come back to the CCC at curfew. [ 87 ] Thus, in Dr. Morissette’s opinion, the manner in which Mr. Guilbeault described the events that led to his arrest shows his tendency to minimize his actions and to present himself as a victim, rather than as someone who must learn to manage his emotions, his impulsivity and his substance use. [ 88 ] Dr. Morissette’s diagnosis regarding Mr.

Guilbeault is the following: a pathological and fragile organization of the personality (antisocial personality disorder); and, a substance abuse disorder in relation to alcohol and cannabis, currently in institutional remission. [ 89 ] During their meeting, Mr. Guilbeault mentioned having auditory hallucinations. In discussing this further with Mr. Guilbeault, Dr. Morissette concluded that what Mr. Guilbeault described as auditory hallucinations were in fact inner thoughts. According to Dr. Morissette, Mr. Guilbeault does not suffer from a psychotic disorder. [ 90 ] From a clinical standpoint, the risk that Mr.

Guilbeault will reoffend by committing a violent offense is high in light of the following factors: Mr. Guilbeault had behavioral problem at a young age; he was the victim of violence in his family environment; he had problems at school; he was placed in foster care and in youth centers; he committed crimes as a teenager; he had problems in detention; he committed crimes when he reintegrated the community; he has a substance abuse problem; he lacks empathy; he has a high level of impulsivity and he has a low level of self-criticism. [ 91 ] From an actuarial standpoint, the risk that Mr.

Guilbeault will reoffend by committing a violent offense is also high for the following reasons:

• Dr. Morissette used the Psychopathy Check List Revised (“PCL-R”) to assess the presence of a psychopathic personality; a score of 30 or above indicates the presence of such a personality and has a direct impact on an person’s capacity to receive treatment; a score above 28 or 29 is not frequent; it indicates that the person will be less responsive to treatment; thus, there is no significant difference between a score of 29, 30 or 31 when it comes to responsiveness to treatment; • Dr. Morissette assessed Mr.

Guilbeault’s score at between 30 and 31, which is the lower limit of the psychopathic personality; when cross-examined, he recognised that a PCL-R score should be a single number; however, he felt that a score between 30 and 31 represented best Mr. Guilbeault; if he had to choose between these two numbers, he would give him a score of 30 [98] ; and, • Dr. Morissette also used the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (“VRAG”) [99] , a tool that provides a statistical estimate of recidivism; Dr. Morissette ranked Mr. Guilbeault at the 96 th percentile; according to Dr. Morissette, Mr.

Guilbeault belongs to a category of offenders who are at high risk of recidivism both general and violent; in short, out of a hundred federal inmates, only four will get a higher score than Mr. Guilbeault and will have a higher risk of recidivism. [ 92 ] In light of all of this information, Dr. Morissette concluded that Mr. Guilbeault is at high risk of general and violent recidivism. Dr. Morissette’s opinion was neither undermined nor weakened by his cross-examination. The opinion of Dr. Stephenson [ 93 ] Dr.

Stephenson is a forensic psychologist with, amongst other qualifications, a master in addiction intervention. He has also published articles in relation to psychometrics, a science that focuses on creating reliable and current tools to carry out evaluations. [ 94 ] In June 2018, Dr. Stephenson met Mr. Guilbeault twice on the same day for a total of three hours. During this meeting, Mr.

Guilbeault described the events that led to his arrest as follows: • he decided to leave the CCC to confront one of his friend who, together with her husband, had stolen 5 000 $ from his bank account; when he decided to leave, he had just started taking a new medication, Abilify; he was also taking Ativan and had not used cannabis for three days; • when he arrived at his friend’s apartment, an argument broke and he slapped his friend; her husband ran away; he took his friend’s car keys and told her that he would not call the police if she gave him back his money; • when he saw the police, he tried fleeing, speeding away with the car; and, • in describing these events, Mr.

Guilbeault expressed remorse toward the victim, his friend, and mentioned that he did not manage the situation properly. [ 95 ] Dr. Stephenson concluded that Mr. Guilbeault tends to minimise his actions and to perceive himself as a victim but is capable of partial self-criticism and intellectual empathy for his victims. However, the cross-examination of Dr. Stephenson revealed that he was not thorough in carrying out his analysis: • first, Dr.

Stephenson admitted that he did not look at the police reports or at any other source of information to find out the actual circumstances surrounding the commission of the offenses that led to Mr. Guilbeault’s arrest; he relied on Mr. Guilbeault’s description of the events without verifying its accuracy or its truthfulness; without such verifications, how can Dr. Stephenson assess whether Mr. Guilbeault is telling the truth, or minimising his actions, or expressing real self-criticism, real empathy or real remorse? • second, Dr. Stephenson admitted not knowing the type of violence that was used by Mr.

Guilbeault in committing the offenses that led to his arrest [100] ; • third, Dr. Stephenson admitted not knowing the underlying facts in relation to Mr. Guilbeault’s prior convictions but stated that these facts were not relevant; • fourth, Dr. Stephenson admitted not having read the 30 incident reports issued while Mr. Guilbeault was in detention; he again stated that these facts were not relevant; • fifth, Dr. Stephenson did not know that Mr.

Guilbeault had been charged for assaulting prison guards in 2017; and, • finally, when confronted with the fact that he knew little about the violent acts committed by Mr. Guilbeault, Dr. Stephenson explained that he had sufficient information to carry out his assessment; he went on to explain that each violent act counts for one point for a maximum of six points; thus, the number of violent acts is no longer relevant once six have been committed; the nature or the severity of the violence is also irrelevant to this analysis. [ 96 ] Dr.

Stephenson’s cross-examination showed that he knew little about the past behavior of Mr. Guilbeault. This lack of information certainly has an impact on his capacity to opine on Mr. Guilbeault’s actual character, including his capacity for self-criticism and for empathy. Thus, the Court will disregard Dr. Stephenson’s conclusion in this regard. [ 97 ] Furthermore, Dr. Stephenson concluded that the cannabis withdrawal symptoms and the side effects of Abilify caused the behavior that led to Mr. Guilbeault’s arrest. He explained that when Mr.

Guilbeault stopped using cannabis, he became unable to control his irritability and his impulsivity. At the same time, his inhibitions were lowered. This explains why he left the CCC, assaulted his former girlfriend, stole her car and try to escape the police. However, his cross-examination on this subject revealed the following: • when asked how he came to the conclusion that Mr. Guilbeault became irritable when he stopped taking cannabis, Dr. Stephenson referred to his general knowledge on addiction; he also referred to the fact that Mr. Guilbeault had mentioned this to the psychologist Ms.

Chrétien; it is a though Dr. Stephenson did not address this issue with Mr. Guilbeault;

• moreover, Dr. Stephenson’s conclusion appears disconcerting because it fails to take into account the passage of time; a month elapsed between Mr. Guilbeault’s decision not to return to the CCC and the assault on his former girlfriend; yet, Dr. Stephenson did not seek information regarding what Mr. Guilbeault did during that month including his drug consumption, if any. [ 98 ] Dr. Stephenson’s opinion on this subject either flows from a misunderstanding of the timing of the events or flows from his willingness to draw conclusions from incomplete factual hypothesis.

In any event, this reflects his lack of thoroughness. That being said, in the end, the evidence showed that Mr. Guilbeault took drugs during that month [101] . Dr. Stephenson’s conclusion is therefore rooted in false premise. The Court will thus disregard his opinion on this subject. [ 99 ] The diagnosis of Dr. Stephenson was similar to that of Dr. Morissette. There is one exception: Dr. Stephenson diagnosed Mr. Guilbeault with a psychotic disorder. This diagnosis flows from the fact that Mr. Guilbeault reported having auditory hallucinations to the psychologist Ms. Chrétien, and from a screening test that Dr.

Stephenson administered to Mr. Guilbeault. This, according to Dr. Morissette, is not sufficient to diagnose a psychotic disorder. For such a diagnosis to be made, the clinical exam must reveal the presence of psychotic behavior. Because Mr. Guilbeault did not exhibit psychotic behavior during his meeting with Dr. Stephenson, the diagnosis should not have been made. On this issue, the Court tends favor Dr. Morissette’s opinion and thus, will disregard Dr. Stephenson’s diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. [ 100 ] From an actuarial standpoint, Dr. Stephenson concluded that there is a high risk that Mr.

Guilbeault will reoffend by committing a violent crime: • Dr. Stephenson attributed a score of 27 to Mr. Guilbeault on the PCL-R scale; this score indicates that Mr. Guilbeault has a mix personality but also suggests that he has many psychopathic traits; in fact, Dr. Stephenson reported that Mr. Guilbeault exhibits behavior that meet the criteria associated with psychopathy; • the VRAG-R tool is an updated version of the previously used VRAG tool; it has 9 categories; a higher score means a higher risk that the offender will reoffend in a violent manner; • Dr. Stephenson ranked Mr.

Guilbeault in the 9 th category, which is the category with the higher risk of violent recidivism, at the 91 th percentile; this means that only 8% of the inmates in federal penitentiaries are at a higher risk to reoffend violently than Mr. Guilbeault [102] . [ 101 ] At the end, Dr. Stephenson concluded that Mr. Guilbeault is at high risk of general and violent recidivism. (iii) Expert evidence on future treatment prospects [ 102 ] The experts agree that effective treatment programs are offered by the CSC. However, they disagree on the possibility of eventually managing the risk posed by Mr.

Guilbeault in the community. Dr. Morissette concluded that the risk cannot be managed in the community while Dr. Stephenson concluded that it can be managed in the community. Dr. Stephenson’s conclusion was however undermined and weaken by his cross-examination. The opinion of Dr. Morissette [ 103 ] Dr. Morissette concluded that the risk posed by Mr.

Guilbeault cannot be managed in the community for the following reasons: • The CSC offers effective treatment programs in the penitentiaries; however, these programs only work if the inmate is capable of introspection and recognises that he or she has a problem; treating violence is similar to treating addiction; the first step is recognising the problem; without that first step, the program will not work; • Mr.

Guilbeault is not capable of introspection; he is still at a stage where he considers himself a victim; he must learn to question himself and to develop abilities to handle his emotions, deceptions and frustrations in an institutional setting; and, • there is no community program that can reduce, control or manage the risk that Mr. Guilbeault represents. [ 104 ] His conclusion was neither weakened nor undermined by his cross-examination. The opinion of Dr. Stephenson [ 105 ] According to Dr. Stephenson, it would be premature to designate Mr.

Guilbeault as a dangerous offender for the following reasons: • first, the offenses that led to Mr. Guilbeaut’s arrest were caused by symptoms associated with cannabis withdrawal and the side effects of Abilify; • second, Mr. Guilbeault’s participation in three clinical activities while he was detained at the RMHC shows that he has the motivation to change; • third, the risked posed by Mr. Guilbeault can be lowered to a point where it can be controlled in the community if Mr.

Guilbeault participates in the High Intensity Multi-Target Program offered by the CSC for a period of three to four years [103] ; and, • fourth, Mr. Guilbeault has already been designated a long-term offender; his LSO conditions can provide for the obligation to participate in a treatment program while in the community. [ 106 ] However, the cross-examination of Dr. Stephenson weakened and undermined his conclusions for the following reasons:

• first, Dr. Stephenson’s opinion regarding the impact that the cannabis withdrawal symptoms and the side effects of Abilify had on Mr. Guilbeault’s behavior has no credibility, as explained before; • second, Dr. Stephenson’s cross-examination showed that he knew very little about the past behavior of Mr. Guilbeault; this lack of information has an impact on his capacity to properly assess whether Mr. Guilbeault is capable and ready for treatment; • third, Dr. Stephenson did not know that the LSO imposed upon Mr.

Guilbeault was for a duration of five years; he thought that it was in force for 10 years; • fourth, Dr. Stephenson’s opinion regarding Mr. Guilbeault’s treatment prospects rely on the premise that Mr. Guilbeault had not been able to participate in treatment programs offered by the CSC while detained; in cross-examination, he admitted not having read the correctional plans prepared while Mr. Guilbeault was detained; he did not know if treatment programs were suggested, offered or followed by Mr. Guilbeault; thus, Dr. Stephenson did not know that before reoffending violently in 2016, Mr.

Guilbeault had successfully completed the Integrated Correctional Program Model – Primer and had begun the High Intensity Multi-Target Program [104] ; • fifth, the premise that the High Intensity Multi-Target Program lowers the general recidivism risk by 45% and the violent recidivism risk by 63% is at the core of Dr. Stephenson’s opinion that the threat posed by Mr.

Guilbeault can be managed in the community; however, his cross-examination showed that these statistics, which are cited in his report, are not associated to the High Intensity Multi-Target Program; this program is too recent for statistics to be available; and, • finally, the statistics cited in Dr. Stephenson’s report are associated with the Addiction Treatment Program [105] and relevant to recidivism in situation involving addiction problems; in cross-examination, Dr.

Stephenson admitted that there are statistics associated with the Violent Offender Treatment Program [106] ; he also admitted that these statistics show a higher rate of recidivism than those associated with the Addiction Treatment Problem; when asked why he chose to use the statistics associated with the Addiction Treatment Program as opposed to those associated with the Violent Offender Treatment Program, Dr.

Stephenson could not answer at first; after a recess, he said that he used the statistics associated with the Addiction Treatment Program because he wanted to show the higher limit of success. [ 107 ] As a result of his cross-examination, Dr. Stephenson’s opinion on Mr. Guilbeault’s treatment prospects lost all of its credibility. The fact that he was unable, at first, to explain the source of the statistics that he used in his report raises questions as to the thoroughness of his work. The explanation that he later provided on this issue brings the Court to question whether Dr.

Stephenson was forthcoming and capable of admitting that he had made an obvious mistake when referring to these statistics. (IV) Character evidence presented by Mr. Guilbeault [107] [ 108 ] Mr. Guilbeault’s older sister testified as follows: • she has a close relationship with her brother; they speak almost every day; • Mr. Guilbeault is a good person; he has set goals for himself; it is the first time that she can envisaged a future for him; she is convinced that with the right tool, he could do well; • when Mr.

Guilbeault was released from prison in 2016, she was there for him; she tried to encourage him; she was available if he needed to talk; she will be there for him when he is released from prison [108] . [ 109 ] During the sentencing proceedings, Mr. Guilbeault read a letter [109] to the Court and testified. In his letter, he explained the chain of events that led to his arrest, apologised for his behavior and explained how he has changed since being at the RMHC.

His letter can be summarized as follows: • after his release on May 9, 2016, he tried his best to stay within the guidelines of his parole; • he told his parole officer that he had auditory hallucinations and that he was self-harming; he saw different doctors; one told him to stop taking medicinal cannabis and he did; another, prescribed Abilify and Ativan; after a few days of taking these medications, he felt sick: he had tunnel vision; he could not eat nor sleep; he was anxious; and, he had intense auditory hallucinations; • he told his parole officer how he was feeling and she told him to continue taking the medication; on the 3 rd night, he ran away from the CCC; he started taking drugs to control his auditory hallucinations; • he managed to stay out of trouble, until his former girlfriend and her boyfriend stole from him; he robbed them back; this was wrong; • the next day, he made poor choices; he never intended for anyone to get hurt and he did not mean to threaten anybody’s life; he just wanted to get out of there because he was scared; his actions were immature, foolish and not the brightest; • he feels sorry for his passenger, who got shot; he also feels sorry for the police officers who could have gotten really hurt; • he never had a lawyer that he could trust until now; his other lawyers told him not to speak and thus, in his previous cases, he did not provide explanations; • he missed out on so much of his life; he is young; he has his whole life ahead of him; he is not a hopeless case; and, he does not want to repeat the same pattern of behavior;

• he has been in a treatment center for more than a year; he works on himself every day; he has almost finished school; he completed three clinical activities; he participates in weekly groups; he sees a psychologist every week; he works closely with his psycho-educator; and, he takes medication that works for him. [ 110 ] In this letter, Mr. Guilbeault downplays the gravity and the seriousness of the offenses he committed. For instance, he does not mention the assault on his former girlfriend, on Agent Vaillancourt nor on Sergent Marnier.

By categorising his actions as being “foolish”, “not the brightest” or “immature”, he does not convey their gravity nor their seriousness and he minimises his responsibility. He also attributes blame to his former girlfriend. According to him, her behavior is what caused things to go wrong. He does not seem to understand that his decision to leave the CCC and to remain at large is what caused things to go wrong. [ 111 ] Mr.

Guilbeault’s testimony can be summarized as follows: • detention was difficult for him, especially at the Donnacona Penitentiary; he could not participate in programs offered by the CSC at that Penitentiary; he had to wait until he was released; • the RMHC changed his life; the people who work at the RMHC respect and care for him; the three clinical activities that he has completed have taught him strategies which help him manage his emotions in daily life; • he did not refuse to meet with Dr. Morissette and cannot explain why Dr. Morissette said that he did; according to him, Dr.

Morissette judged him by the look on his face; • he is done with his criminal lifestyle; he no longer has a criminal minding. He wants to change his life and is willing to participate in any program offered by the CCC by going to school and getting a job; and, • he is sorry for what he has done wrong; it was foolish and immature; he should have been able to stop, even if he was stressed or on drugs; he made a mistake and he knows that he has to pay; he also feels that the situation is unjust as many others “have not gotten it as rough as me”. [ 112 ] Mr.

Guilbeault’s cross-examination showed that he still sees himself as a victim.

He minimises the gravity and the seriousness of his behavior and blames other for his actions: • when questioned about the aggravated assault that he committed in 2010, he explained that the victim lived across the street from him and was threatening him on a daily basis; he knew that the victim had threaten and stolen from a little boy and decided to confront the victim about this; he stabbed the victim with a knife that he had brought with him for protection; • the fact that he was designated as a long-term offender as a result of this offense was an injustice; the psychological reports that led to his designation were not accurate; a psychologist from Pinel, who did not understand English well, twisted his words; • with respect to his prior conviction for robbery, to which he pled guilty in 2012, he stated that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time; he saw two guys rob a drug dealer and “they” implicated him in the offense; • as for the numerous incident reports while he was in detention at RDP between 2010 and 2013, he explained that he had to defend himself; he was young and he needed to stand his ground; • he participated in the program “Vivre sans violence” at RDP because he wanted to change and stop his violent behavior pattern; but that program was “nothing serious”; • at the Donnacona Penitentiary, the guards are rougher than typical; they were “primed”; he felt provoked by them; he was treated like a dog; • he was only offered the High Intensity Multi-Target Program six months before being release from the Donnacona Penitentiary; he had to stop the program for administrative reasons; and, • while he was illegally at large, in January 2016, his former girlfriend called him and he thought she was in trouble; he went to her house and saw that her boyfriend was drunk; her boyfriend attacked him with a knife. [ 113 ] In short, Mr.

Guilbeault still perceives himself as a victim and is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions.

He blames the victim for the 2010 aggravated assault; he described himself as an innocent bystander falsely accused of robbery; he blames a psychiatrist that did not speak fluently English for his designation as a long-term offender; he believes that his designation as a long-term offender was an injustice; he blames his aggressive behavior in prison on the need to defend himself or on the guards’ attitude; and, he blames the CSC for not having been able to participate in a treatment program before early 2015. [ 114 ] Mr.

Guilbeault still minimises his actions and is incapable of understanding the consequences that they had on others. While he knows that he should apologize for what he did, he is incapable of expressing real remorse, derived for an understanding of the consequences of his actions. (

V) Conclusion on the first question [ 115 ] Impulsive and violent behaviour has been part of Mr. Guilbeault’s life since his youth. Through the years, Mr.

Guilbeault participated in various programs aimed at reducing the use of violence: as an adolescent, he completed twice an Anger Replacement Training Program offered through a Youth Center; at RDP, he followed 10 of the 12 sessions of the program called “Vivre sans violence; upon his arrival at the Donnacona Penitentiary in 2013, he showed no interest in the High Intensity Violence Prevention Program which had been recommended for him; when he finally showed interest, in 2015, he completed the Integrated Correctional Program Model – Primer and begun the High Intensity Multi-Target Program.

[ 116 ] In June 2015, he was granted statutory release. Six months later, in January 2016, he breached his statutory release conditions and was involved in a violent incident for which proceedings are still pending. Eight months later, he breached his LSO conditions and remained illegally at large for a month. He assaulted a former girlfriend and stole her car. The next day, he used the stolen car to try and avoid capture by police.

In the process, he committed numerous offenses and he assaulted Sergent Marinier and Agent Vaillancourt. [ 117 ] After his re-incarceration, he was sanctioned for various incidents in 2016 and 2017 and charged for assaulting two correctional officers at the Donnacona Penitentiary. His behaviour and attitude improved at the RMHC as of June 2018 but this came to an end in December 2019, when he assaulted other inmates. He was discharged from the RMHC. His positive experience at the RMHC was thus only a brief positive interlude. [ 118 ] Mr.

Guilbeault suffers from an antisocial personality disorder, which was first diagnosed in 2012 by the psychologist Dr. Bergeron. The characteristics of this disorder include impulsivity; irritability and aggressiveness; reckless disregard for safety of self or others; and lack of remorse. Dr. Bergeron, Dr. Proulx and the expert Dr. Morissette agree that Mr. Guilbeault tends to minimise his actions, to present himself as a victim and to blame others for his actions. These are deeply ingrained personality traits that were still present when Mr.

Guilbeault testified before the Court and that therefore, are likely to be present in the future. [ 119 ] There are effective treatment programs available to Mr. Guilbeault but these programs will only work if Mr. Guilbeault is capable of introspection. Dr. Morissette is of the opinion that this is not the case and the Court shares his opinion in this regard. Indeed, Mr. Guilbeault’s testimony shows that he blames others for almost everything that has happened to him. He is not yet capable of introspection. Consequently, treatment prospects cannot attenuate the future risk posed by Mr.

Guilbeault. [ 120 ] The question at issue is whether the Prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guilbeault represents “a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons”. In this regard, the Court finds that the Prosecution has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the two following patterns of conduct provided for at Section 753(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code : • A pattern of repetitive behavior by Mr. Guilbeault, of which the serious personal injury offenses for which he is being sentenced form part, showing a failure to restrain his behavior and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his behavior; • A pattern of persistent aggressive behavior by Mr.

Guilbeault, of which the serious personal injury offenses for which he is being sentenced forms part, showing a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behavior to other persons; or, [ 121 ] The Prosecution has also established, beyond a reasonable doubt that that the serious personal injuries offenses committed by Mr. Guilbeault are part of a broader violence pattern; that there is a likelihood that Mr. Guilbeault will reoffend and in doing so will endanger the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons; and, that Mr.

Guilbeault’s violent conduct is intractable. Thus, the Court designates Mr. Guilbeault as a dangerous offender. Question 2: Should Mr. Guilbeault be sentenced to an indeterminate detention period? [ 122 ] The second stage of the dangerous offender process is concerned with sentencing. In this regard, the general sentencing principles set out by Sections 718 and following of the Criminal Code are applicable. Thus, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

A fit sentence takes into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the offense and to the offender [110] . [ 123 ] The sentence must also balance the sentencing objectives of denunciation, dissuasion, rehabilitation, retribution and public safety. A sentence for an indeterminate detention means that the need to protect the public trumps the other objectives, including the need for rehabilitation. Therefore, if the objective of public protection can be achieved without imposing indeterminate detention, then it should not be imposed.

In short, the sentencing judge must impose the least intrusive sentence required to achieve the primary purpose of the dangerous offender scheme [111] . [ 124 ] The evidence relevant to the designation stage of the analysis is also relevant to the sentencing stage, though for the purpose of making different findings [112] . [ 125 ] In this matter, the Court must sentence Mr. Guilbeault for the following three offenses: an assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend, an assault with a weapon against a police officer (Sergent Marinier) and an assault with a weapon against Agent Vaillancourt [113] .

These three offenses are punishable by a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment. Their objective gravity is moderate. [ 126 ] Mr. Guilbeault has prior convictions for crime of violence. In 2010, he pled guilty to a count of aggravated assault and was sentenced to five years of detention. He was also designated a long-term offender and a LSO was imposed for an additional five years. In his sentencing decision, Justice Galarneau stated that the aggravated assault was an unprovoked incident involving a very high degree of violence on an unknown victim [114] . [ 127 ] Mr.

Guilbeault’s sentence for this aggravated assault ended in July 2016. At that point, his LSO began [115] . Therefore, when Mr. Guilbeault committed the three assaults for which he must now be sentenced, he had just finished serving his sentence for the aggravated assault of December 2010 and his LSO had just begun. [ 128 ] In September 2016, Mr. Guilbeault failed to return to the CCC by curfew, breaching the conditions of his LSO. This was not the first time that he breached conditions. A few months earlier, in January 2016, he had breached the condition of his statutory release and attacked a man [116] .

[ 129 ] Mr. Guilbeault remained at large for a month before committing the three assaults for which he must now be sentenced. On October 25, 2016, he assaulted his former girlfriend with a weapon and stole her car. The next day, he assaulted Sergent Marinier and Agent Vaillancourt. To describe the events of that day as a “police chase” or as being “immature” or “foolish” amounts to minimising what actually occurred on that day [117] . [ 130 ] On that day, Sergent Marinier was asked to patrol a specific area to find the car that was stolen by Mr. Guilbeault the day before.

Sergent Marinier found the car and reported its location. Agent Bergeron was dispatched to arrest the two suspects that were in the car. He parked his police car behind the stolen car and told the driver and the passenger to get out. Mr. Guilbeault, who was driving the car, chose not to obey that order and instead, sped off to avoid being caught by police. [ 131 ] Mr. Guilbeault drove toward the back of the building and turned into a parking lot where he hit two parked cars and ran over a cement block. Hitting these cars and running over the cement block did not stop him.

He turned the car into an alley, hoping to reach the street and escape police. Agent Vaillancourt’s unmarked police car was parked in that alley and was blocking Mr. Guilbeault’s escape. Sergent Marinier was also in the alley, on foot. That did not stop Mr. Guilbeault. Instead, he drove toward Agent Vaillancourt’s car and squeezed the stolen car between her car and the wall of the adjacent building. Sergent Marinier, who was caught in this situation, feared for his life. He fired his weapon aiming at one of the tires of the stolen car but shot the passenger of the car. Mr. Guilbeault did not stop.

He reached the street and drove off, still hoping to avoid being caught by police. Officer Bergeron pursued Mr. Guilbeault’s car and eventually decided that the only way to end the pursuit was to hit the stolen car.

This is what he did. [ 132 ] The events of that day had the following impacts on Agent Vaillancourt, Sergent Marinier and Agent Bergeron [118] : • Agent Vaillancourt suffered from a whiplash and had pain in her leg; for a few months, the pain affected her daily activities and her sleep; she missed worked; she consulted a doctor, a neurosurgeon, a chiropractor, an osteopath, an acupuncturist and a massage therapist for her pain; she became anxious and had to consult a psychologist [119] ; • Sergent Marinier suffered from back and neck pain, stress and insomnia and chronic fatigue; he became anxious, withdrawn and irritable, even with his family [120] ; • Agent Bergeron suffered from severe post-traumatic stress; he missed work; he was assigned administrative duties for a year; he never fully reintegrated his patrol duties as he cannot work on the road or respond to 9-1-1 calls; he was on antidepressant for two years and as a result, was prescribed a drug rehabilitation program; he sees a psychologist every two weeks [121] . [ 133 ] The circumstances surrounding the commission of the three assaults reveal the presence of aggravating factors.

For instance, when he committed these offenses, Mr. Guilbeault was under LSO conditions and had been illegally at large for a month. The assaults against Sergent Marinier and Agent Vaillancourt were committed to avoid being caught by police. Finally, these offenses had important consequences for both police officers involved. There is only one mitigating factor: Mr. Guilbeault’s guilty plea for having assaulted his former girlfriend [122] . The subjective gravity of these three offenses is therefore high. [ 134 ] As for Mr.

Guilbeault’s character, the Court previously concluded that impulsive and violent behaviour has been part of his life since his youth and is intractable. [ 135 ] A finding of intractability does not prevent an offender from being sentenced to something other than an indeterminate sentence, if the risk to the community can be otherwise managed. In this regard, the Defence argues that the risk posed by Mr. Guilbeault can be managed by imposing a determinate detention period and imposing an LSO for a further period of five years, which would begin when the previous LSO would end.

In fact, this suggestion means that after his detention period, Mr. Guilbeault would be subject to LSO conditions for more than nine years. In support of this suggestion, the Defence presented evidence that the High Intensity Multi-Target Program offered by the SCC substantially reduces the recidivism risk. [123] [ 136 ] The Court disagrees with the Defence’s position. The question at issue is not the efficiency of this program. It is whether or not a sentence other than indeterminate detention can adequately protect the public from the risk posed by Mr. Guilbeault. [ 137 ] In this regard, the opinion of Dr.

Morissette on future treatment prospects is relevant. Dr. Morissette recognised that there are effective programs available, but underlined that these programs only work if the offender is capable of introspection. Dr. Morissette concluded that Mr. Guilbeault is not capable of introspection. He is still at a stage where he considers himself a victim. Thus, before being able to benefit from a treatment program, Mr. Guilbeault must learn to question himself and to develop abilities to handle his emotions, deceptions and frustrations in an institutional setting. [ 138 ] Dr.

Morissette reached these conclusions in September 2017, before Mr. Guilbeault’s admission at the RMHC. Mr. Guilbeault’s testimony and his letter to the Court show that notwithstanding his detention at the RMHC, he still minimises his actions and blames others. He is still not capable of introspection. Therefore, treatment prospects are, in Mr. Guilbeault’s case, nothing more than an expression of hope. The risk posed by Mr. Guilbeault cannot be managed by a sentence other than an indeterminate sentence. [ 139 ] The Court sentences Mr.

Guilbeault to an indeterminate detention period for the following three offenses: assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend, assault with a weapon against a police officer (Sergent Marinier) and assault with a weapon against Agent Vaillancourt.

Question 3: What should be the sentence for the offenses to which the dangerous offender provisions do not apply? [ 140 ] In order to decide the previous questions, the Court has outlined the general principles applicable to sentencing as well as the circumstances in which Mr. Guilbeault committed the offenses for which he must now be sentenced. Therefore, there is no need to reiterate these principles nor these circumstances. There is also no need to reiterate the Court’s findings with respect to Mr.

Guilbeault’s character. [ 141 ] In order to answer the third question, the Court will first decide the applicable sentence for each of the offenses to which the dangerous offender provisions do not apply. The Court will then asses the need to apply the totality principle, the purpose of which is to ensure that the global sentence imposed to Mr. Guilbeault is not unduly harsh. Finally, the Court will deduce the applicable preventive custody. (

i) The sentences for breaching the LSO conditions and possessing drugs [ 142 ] In the file 500-01-148962-175, the Court found Mr. Guilbeault guilty of the following two counts: (1) breaching the conditions of his LSO between September 24 and October 25, 2016 by failing to reside at the CCC; and, (2) breaching the conditions of his LSO on October 26, 2016 by not obeying the law and keeping the peace because he was in possession of 1,27 grams of cocaine and 2,12 grams of hashish at the time of his arrest. [ 143 ] Both of these counts are punishable by a maximum imprisonment of ten years.

Their objective gravity is moderate. That being said, in imposing sentence, the Court must keep in mind the gravity of such an offense. LSO are imposed on offenders who need to be managed in the community to ensure public security. Breaching the conditions of an LSO not only jeopardises public security, it also strikes a blow at public confidence in the dangerous/long-term offender scheme.

There is thus a need to ensure that the sentence impose for such an offense meet the need for denunciation and dissuasion [124] . [ 144 ] When assessing the subjective gravity of the first count, the Court must keep in mind that the condition to reside at the CCC was imposed because Mr. Guilbeault required a high level of intervention in order to manage the danger that he posed to the community [125] . Thus, by breaching this condition and remaining at large for a month, Mr. Guilbeault neutralised the most important control mechanism of his LSO. Moreover, this was not the first time that Mr.

Guilbeault breached a condition. He had, a few months before, breached the conditions of his statutory release in a similar manner. These elements are aggravating factor. As for potential mitigating factors, the Court previously explained why it discarded Dr. Stephenson’s opinion that Mr. Guilbeault’s actions resulted from symptoms associated with cannabis withdrawal and side effects associated to new medication. Mr. Guilbeault’s testimony that his decision to leave the CCC and to remain at large for a month was caused by those symptoms flows from his tendency to minimise his actions and assigned blame elsewhere.

His testimony is not credible. There are thus no mitigating factors. [ 145 ] Considering all of these elements, the Court sentences Mr. Guilbeault to an imprisonment of 24 months for this first count. [ 146 ] As for the second count, it raises the question of multiple convictions. In file 500-01-152307-176, Mr. Guilbeault pled guilty to two counts for having been in possessing of 1,27 grams of cocaine (count 1) and 2,12 grams of hashish (count 2) at the time of his arrest [126] .

In light of the nature of these three offenses and the facts from which the guilty verdicts flow, the Court will apply the rule that protects against multiple convictions [127] . The objectively more serious offense is the breach of the LSO and thus, the Court will impose sentence on that count and will declare a conditional stay of proceedings in relation to the two count for drug possession in file 500-01-152307-176. [ 147 ] With respect to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Guilbeault’s breach of his LSO conditions, there are no specific mitigating nor aggravating factors.

That being said, the need for denunciation and dissuasion is present given the nature of the offense and the importance of LSO conditions. Thus, the Court sentences Mr. Guilbeault a detention of 12 months for this count. This sentence is to be served consecutively to the sentence on the first count as those two breaches are different in nature and flow from different facts. (ii) The sentence for stealing his former girlfriend’s car [ 148 ] In Court file 500-01-146666-166, Mr. Guilbeault pled guilty to a count of stealing his former girlfriend’s car.

This offense is punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 10 years. Its objective gravity is moderate. [ 149 ] Mr. Guilbeault testified on the circumstances surrounding this offense. He explained that he stole his former girlfriend’s car as retribution because she had stolen from him. This is certainly not a mitigating factor. The fact that Mr. Guilbeault pled guilty to this offense is, however, a mitigating factor. As for aggravating factors, the evidence shows that Mr. Guilbeault used the car the next day in his attempt to flee police.

This most likely resulted in an economical loss for the victim as the car was damaged but the evidence is mute on the value of that loss. [ 150 ] In light of all of these circumstances, the Court sentences Mr. Guilbeault to a detention of six months to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in file 500-01-148962-175 and in file 500-01-146506-164. (iii) The sentence for the offenses of October 26, 2016 [ 151 ] In file 500-01-146506-164, the Court found Mr.

Guilbeault guilty of one count for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; of two counts for failure to stop at the scene of an accident (when he hit a parked car and when he hit Agent Vaillancourt’s car) and, of one count for fleeing while being pursued by a police officer. [ 152 ] These offenses are punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 5 years. Their objective gravity is low. [ 153 ] In assessing the subjective gravity of these offenses, the Court notes that they were committed to avoid being caught by police, as Mr. Guilbeault was illegally at large. In fact, Mr. Guilbeault never stopped the car.

Agent Bergeron h

[…]