2022 QCCQ 5841, 2022 QCCQ 5841

R. c. L.L. 2022 QCCQ 5841 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF GRANBY “Criminal and Penal Division” No.: 460-01-038193-201 DATE: September 6, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v. L. L.

Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING DECISION ______________________________________________________________________ By order of the Court under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code , no information that could identify the person described in this judgment as the victim or the complainant may be published or broadcast in any way. [ 1 ] L. L. pleaded guilty to the following charges: 2.

Between March 16, 2002, and March 15, 2004, in Town A, District of Bedford, did, for a sexual purpose, touch with a part of her body the body of X (1986-[...]), an adolescent towards whom she was in a position of authority or trust and with whom X (1986-[...]) was in a relationship of dependency, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 153(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . 3. Between March 16, 2002, and March 15, 2004, in Town A, District of Bedford, did, for a sexual purpose, invite, counsel or incite X (1986-[...]), an adolescent, to touch her while she was in a position of authority or trust towards X (1986-[...]) or while X was in a relationship of dependency to her, thereby committing the indictable offence set out in s. 153(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] The parties filed a precise statement recounting the facts justifying the charges. The accused admitted in full and signed this statement of facts. [ 3 ] I will not repeat these facts, but the statement is attached as a

schedule to this judgment and is crucial to understanding the decision that follows. [ 4 ] To fully grasp the circumstances of the offences, however, the Court notes that the victim, “ X” , was barely 16 years old when she was placed with the accused, then 32 years old and herself a mother of children. The Director of Youth Protection (“DYP”) was involved in X ’s life at that time. [ 5 ] X had clearly been living in a dysfunctional environment up to that point. She knew the accused because her siblings were already friends with L. L.’s children.

Before she was placed by the DYP, X considered her the [ translation ] “cool mom”, very different from her mother and at whose home she hoped find security and protection. [ 6 ] Things did not work out at all as planned, however. [ 7 ] Once again, without repeating the attached detailed statement of facts, the accused rapidly forced X to participate intensively and repeatedly in sexual activities. She called the victim her “lover”. [ 8 ] The victim was helpless and felt that she had no other alternative.

She submitted to the accused’s deviant desires, which consisted of multiple touchings, digital vaginal and anal penetration, masturbation demanded and endured, and cunnilingus. Eventually, items were also used, such as a vibrator, to perpetrate the same penetrations. [ 9 ] As soon as the victim turned 18, the accused suggested three-way sexual intercourse with a man, but the victim refused. [ 10 ] The sexual assaults – while not described as such at the time they were committed – extended over a period of four years, even after the victim became an adult.

The facts covered by the offences are limited, however, to those committed while X was a minor.

[ 11 ] The joint statement of facts states that the acts described occurred three to four times a week during that period, although tensions appeared between the accused and X after she became an adult and the frequency of the assaults reduced until X finally moved. [ 12 ] X testified and filed a victim impact statement. [ 13 ] Her statements shed considerable light on the extent of the trauma suffered. [ 14 ] It should be recalled that X was placed with the accused for her security and protection. She had nowhere and nobody else to turn to.

The DYP had previously intervened in her life with the result being that she was thrown into the lion’s den. [ 15 ] Her victim impact statements reveal how fragile she was at the time. She was already a vulnerable child from a toxic family environment. What else could she do? What other adult would help her? She explained that she simply [ translation ] “submitted” to the accused’s will. [ 16 ] The record and the evidence at the time of submissions on sentencing show that the accused believed she was in a romantic relationship with X.

It appears that the accused wanted to introduce her as such to some of her acquaintances and she asked the victim to hold her hand in public, or other similar things. The victim refused. [ 17 ] What should her sentence be? The Crown seeks four to five years of imprisonment whereas the defence submits that two years less a day in the community with probation is an appropriate sentence. The parties agree that that sentence is no longer available today, but was at the time the offences were committed.

It may therefore be imposed. [1] [ 18 ] The parties also agree that the offences to which she pleaded guilty were punishable, when they were committed, by five years of imprisonment. In any event, the Court of Appeal of Quebec clearly stated in R. c. X [2] that when it is time to impose a sentence for these kinds of offences, the contemporary criteria, knowledge, and case law should apply. I will return to this. [ 19 ] A pre-sentencing report was prepared. [ 20 ] It describes the accused. She is now 52 years old. She has two adult children who live with her.

She receives social assistance benefits and has not held a job for approximately 25 years. She does not have a criminal record. [ 21 ] Her childhood was marked by violence and little supervision. She was sexually abused when she was 13 years old and again thereafter. [ 22 ] Her two children have different fathers. She says she has a low libido and has difficulty identifying her sexual preferences.

She told the probation officer that she and the victim were a couple, which is not reassuring. [ 23 ] The pre-sentencing report also stated that she very often organizes her life around the needs of other people that, in the expert’s opinion, could explain her actions, which was perhaps a way of regaining some control over her life. [3] [ 24 ] Some remarks in the pre-sentencing report raise further questions. For example: [ translation ] ... Ms. L. struggles to identify the inappropriateness of her actions and recognize the relationship of dependency and authority she had with the victim .

At the same time, this is a woman who has the ability and skills to participate in an active lifestyle, but who chose to be on welfare for reasons that appear insufficient … [4] The offences are a shocking departure from her usual passivity and warrant investigation [5] ...

Considering her difficulty identifying the factors that led her to commit the offences and even her difficulty understanding the inappropriateness of her actions, it is hard for her to establish safeguards to prevent her from reoffending ... [6] [ 25 ] It is important, however, to note that the report does not recommend sexual therapy: [ translation ] ... I also believe that sexual deviancy therapy is not necessary and it would not necessarily meet the offender’s needs.

It would instead be better for her to participate in psychology or psychosocial sessions to discuss the victimization she has experienced in her life and to identify the consequences on her social and emotional interactions . She must also identify which of her needs are neglected and those she hoped to satisfy through her relationship with the victim, and draw parallels between her other relationships and the satisfaction she feels through celibacy… [7] [ 26 ] The accused’s daughter testified. She explained that she lives with her mother –and her brother – and suffers from various health issues.

She said that both her jobs are insecure because of her health issues and that her mother helps her a lot in her daily life. She also described some beliefs that are of little use on what a sexual assault victim should or should not do. [ 27 ] With respect, I do not believe that this evidence is helpful in determining a fit sentence for the accused.

I also do not believe that this evidence means that I should impose a sentence that is discordant with the current case law in similar matters due to the accused’s status as a natural caregiver, in some way, to her 30-year-old daughter who has two jobs. [ 28 ] Last, the accused presented a letter of apology to the victim. [8] X did not want to be present when the letter was read. I acknowledge that the letter appears to contain sincere remorse and regrets. [ 29 ] To return to the initial question: what sentence should be imposed? The parties filed a number of decisions in support of their

positions. [9] These decisions often include references to other judgments. [ 30 ] Of course, I must refer to Friesen , [10] recently rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, which redefines the applicable standards for sentencing persons who sexually abuse children. [ 31 ] I will avoid repeating what has been stated and restated on the subject except to note that this judgment forces us to reconsider our understanding of the seriousness of sexual assault and focus on the catastrophic effects these offences have on victims, rather than on the seriousness of the acts in light of notions of sexual propriety.

Also, and in the same spirit, the Court should respect Parliament’s oft- repeated intention to have harsher sentences imposed. [ 32 ] In this regard, I note that the Supreme Court wrote that it is not sufficient to simply state that these offences are serious and will be treated harshly; sentences must be commensurate with the gravity of these offences. [11] [ 33 ] A review of the case law submitted establishes that the sentences in similar cases, that is, those where a very clear relationship of dependency existed between the victim and the assailant, the assailant was an authority figure, the assaults extended over years, with a large variety of similar acts committed repeatedly, call for sentences of three to six years of imprisonment. [ 34 ] In L.

L.’s case, I consider the following as mitigating factors: she pleaded guilty to the charges, she has no criminal record, and she pleaded guilty relatively quickly. I also note the significant personal deficiencies and history of abuse when she was young. She also expressed some remorse. [ 35 ] As aggravating factors, however, I note that the victim was particularly vulnerable and had no way out.

The position of authority is itself an element of the offence to which she pleaded guilty and is therefore not an “aggravating factor”. [ 36 ] The very high number of incidents, the length of time during which the offences were committed, their invasiveness, the serious harm caused to the victim and that which she suffers to this day, that is, its devastating impact on her, must be taken into account. [ 37 ] As more neutral factors, the pre-sentencing report is neither positive nor negative.

The fact that the accused viewed her assaults as part of her [ translation ] “relationship” with the victim is also neither aggravating nor mitigating. [ 38 ] Last, I do not believe that the sentence should be adjusted because the accused is a woman as opposed to sentences when the assailant is a man. [ 39 ] FOR THESE REASONS, and in light of all of the preceding factors, the appropriate sentence is THREE AND A HALF YEARS on each count, and that is the sentence I impose, to be served concurrently. __________________________________ Serge Champoux, J.C.Q.

Mtre Valérie Simard-Croteau Counsel for the prosecution Mtre Sophie Plouffe Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: June 21, 2022