r v. MENG YE, 2020 QCCS 3177

R. c. Ye 2020 QCCS 3177 JB3976 SUPERIOR COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL N o : 500-01-166994-183 DATE : September 9 th , 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE MARC-ANDRE BLANCHARD, J.S.C. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. MENG YE Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On June 16 th 2020, Meng Ye pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The agreed joint statement of facts reads as follow: Meng Ye pleads guilty to causing the death by means of an unlawful act of Yun Yu (1956-12-17), her mother, on January 28 th 2018 by committing thereby a manslaughter. The victim died from a thoracic trauma by a sharp and pointy weapon. She was stabbed to the upper back once. On July 6 th , 2017, the accused presented herself to CLSC because of paranoids ideas. Appearing disjointed a report was made to the [...] .

The accused was known for mental health issues, having been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder with psychotic and depressive symptoms since 2002. As a result, the accused’s 1-year-old daughter was entrusted to the victim, Mrs. Yu, by [...] on September 7 th , 2017. Ms. Ye’s surveillance plan in her daughter’s custody file included compliance with psychiatric treatments. In October 2017, Ms. Emily Ann Martin was assigned as caseworker for Ms. Ye’s daughter. Ms. Martin had frequent contact with the family up until the events that led to Ms. Yu’s death.

During her involvement in the case, she observed that Ms. Ye’s general mental health improved up until early December 2017, which led to Ms. Ye being authorized to sleep at Ms. Yu’s house. Despite being treated by a psychiatrist and the support of [...], the accused was conflicted about Ms. Yu’s custody of her daughter. She mentioned on several occasions to the social worker in charge of the file that her mother was not the proper caregiver for her daughter and that she would prefer an estranger foster home for her.

She also enquired about her daughter’s fate if anything would’ve happened to her and/or her mother. In the fall 2017, Ms. Ye’s mental health condition led her to believe an organization was planning to kill her mother and daughter in front of her and then render her blind and death. With the objective of protecting herself and her family, she bought a taser gun and smoke grenades, and started carrying a knife. In late December 2017, Ms. Ye’s mental health started degrading.

Between December 23 rd , 2017 and January 3 rd , 2018, she stated having stroke-like symptoms and mentioned she thought her daughter and herself had been poisoned. On January 3 rd 2018, the victim Ms. Yu, texted her ex-husband, the accused’s father, mentioning that Meng Ye threatened to stab her with a knife. On January 6 th , 2018, Ms. Ye contacted [...] and claimed her mother also suffered from mental health issues. She also opined that Ms. Yu was tired, under a lot of pressure, in debt and was verbally abusive to Ms. Ye’s daughter.

She said she did not understand why she could not take care of her child herself. On January 9 th , 2018, Ms. Ye told Ms. Martin that she had observed rashes on her daughter’s bum and that she believed it was caused by her mother’s negligence. She also confessed to having installed a surveillance camera in order to observe her mother and daughter at all times. On January 12 th , 2018, Ms. Yu had a meeting with Ms. Martin, where she explained that Mrs. Ye was not well at all. She said Ms. Ye

did not take her medication properly and was acting paranoid, believing her daughter was being poisoned by Ms. Yu. On January 15 th of 2018, [...] decided to reduce the accused’s access rights to her daughter and forbid the accused to stay at her mother’s place. On January 20 th 2018, police officers were called at the 1910 Guy-Bouchard by the victim’s neighbours. Mrs. Yu was met by police officers, and told them that she had had a fight with her daughter who pushed and threatened her. The victim told a neighbour Ms. Ye had tried to choke her and exhibited red marks on her neck.

She asked the police to evict the accused. During the intervention, the police officers found Ms. Ye collaborative and coherent. They drove the accused to a shelter. Despite the police intervention, [...]’s rules and her mother wishes, the accused returned the same night. Later on that night, Ms. Ye’s web browser shows consultation of newspaper’s

article titled: " CTVnews manitoba woman charges after . " man stabbed house lit on fire In the days before the events, Ms. Ye became convinced she was about to be killed although Dr Brahm, the accused’s treating psychiatrist, following January 26 th ’s appointment, expressed that she was much more settle than when he last saw her on the January 16 th . Dr. Brahm believed she was complying with her medication and observed no signs of psychotic symptoms during his meeting with Ms. Ye. On the night of the events, Ms. Ye became convinced the attack was going to take place that night.

She walked to a gas station, where she purchased gasoline and poured it into two containers that she had brought with her. She then returned to Ms. Yu’s residence. She placed the containers on the balcony, and then moved them to a cupboard inside the home, so that they would be closer to her in the event of an attack. She thought lighting the house on fire would give her the opportunity to escape with her family should they be attacked by the organization.

During the evening, the smell of gasoline in the residence became poignant, which led the accused to make the following queries online around 7 PM: • "« Does gasoline expire » • « Does gasoline evaporate » • « How to get rid of gasoline smell » Between 8:40 and 9:06 PM, the accused sent messages via Facebook Messenger to acquaintances stating that she was having a dispute with her mother, that they were in a " nasty fight "; she was " pissed off " at her; " [she] hate her "; that her mother " was being an ass ". A few hours later, Ms. Yu discovered the gasoline in the cupboard.

A fight ensued, during which the accused stabbed her mother once in the back. The police was first called at 11:16PM by the next door neighbour, as the victim ran outside to seek help. The accused called 911 after the incident was reported and admitted to "having done something wrong", explaining she had stabbed her mother in the back because they "had a big fight", she "got angry", and that her mother "got on my nerves". During the phone call, she asked several times for an ambulance and expressed concerned for her mother’s wellbeing.

The crime scene technician found two containers filled with gasoline in the hallways of the apartment. They found they knife used in a bag with one of those containers as well as smoke grenades in the accused’s bag near the front door. The explosion report confirmed that it is possible to ignite gasoline vapours with a smoke grenade.

The evidence gathered by the investigation as well as the accused’s mental health history and the symptoms exhibited around the time of the event support that, although suffering from mental disorder, her condition did not render her incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act of stabbing her mother or of knowing that stabbing her mother was wrong. Those same elements support the conclusion that when Meng Ye stabbed her mother, she did it without the intent to kill her making here therefore guilty of a manslaughter offence.

I, Meng Ye have read the document and I accept the content of the document. [ 2 ] She is detained since January 28 th , 2019, namely 955 days as of today. [ 3 ] The Crown is seeking a sentence of 12 to 14 years in jail while, the defense pleads for a sentence that would leave Ye with 2 years less a day to serve, considering that her time is pre-sentence custody calculated on a one and a half basis is 1433 days. This amounts to a period of a little less than 6 years in detention. The Crown also seeks a DNA order and a

section 109 Cr.C . firearms prohibition order for life. [ 4 ] The objectives of sentencing, set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code c onsist of: − the denunciation of unlawful conduct; − deterrence both general and specific; − the separation of the offender from society where necessary; − rehabilitation; − reparation for harm done to the victims or the community; − promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.

[ 5 ]

Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Section 718.2 stipulates that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. [ 6 ] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R. v.

Ferguson [1] , “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction”. The facts of the offence, the circumstances of the accused, and his or her moral blameworthiness are all considerations that the Court must take into account. [ 7 ] Under s. 236 of the Criminal Code , the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment. Since a diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for manslaughter, there is wide variation in the range of sentence.

At one end, the circumstances may approximate an unintentional and almost accidental killing, while there will be those approaching murder at the opposite extremity. [ 8 ] The principles of denunciation and deterrence are not always paramount in manslaughter cases, nor is the goal of rehabilitation always subordinate to those objectives [2] .

In this case, Ye’s rehabilitation is a factor in determining the appropriate sentence, given her age and lack of any previous involvement with the criminal justice system. [ 9 ] Her plea of guilty to manslaughter was made and accepted on the basis that the Crown cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific intent required for murder, in light of the psychiatric assessments of her state of mind at the time of the killing of her mother. However, the use of a weapon, a knife, and the stabling are very brutal acts. This is a significant aggravating factor that elevates her moral blameworthiness.

Also, it appears that Ye had been aggressive towards her mother in the past. [ 10 ] The autopsy report [3] concludes that Yun Yu died from one stab using sharp force at the back of the right thorax which injured the right lung and caused an hemothorax. A picture of the knife used in is produced. It is a hunting knife [4] . [ 11 ] There are other aggravating factors. There was an element of breach of trust to the offence, given the parent-child relationship and the fact that she stabbed her mother in the back. [ 12 ] In mitigation, Ye pleaded guilty.

Her guilty plea is an expression of remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for her actions. She also expressed remorse in her written remarks to the Court, which appear sincere and heartfelt. She must live with the fact that she took the life of her mother, who by all accounts was a loving parent and spouse and a respected member of the community. This is a heavy burden to bear. [ 13 ] There was an absence of premeditation, the act appears spontaneous and the fruit of her mental illness. Ye is a first offender with no history of violent behaviour.

There is a well documented history of mental health issues as appears from the reports. [ 14 ] The 911 call made by Ye shows that she is concerned about the conditions of her mother after the stabbing since she continuously asks why the ambulance is not arriving. [ 15 ] The victim impact statement of Rick Jason Magat [5] , Ye’s husband and the father of their daughter, who works in Papua New Guinea, recounts the difficulties he encountered to be able to get his daughter back from the foster home and the shock he felt when he heard of the incident. [ 16 ] The Crown relies on the following precedents: − Cook v.

R. , 2009 QCCA 2423 ; − Antonelli c. R. , 2008 QCCA 1573 ; − R. v. McCormick , 2017 BCCS 145; − R. v. Lamb , 2017 ABQB 239 ; − R. v. Macryllos , 2007 QCCS 4541 . [ 17 ] The Defense submits the following cases for consideration: − R. v. Armstrong , 2018 BCSC 2260 ; − R. v. Badhesa , 2019 BCCA 70 ; − R. v. Chan , 2019 ONSC 1400 ; − R. v. KEHL, 2019 ONSC 7561 ; − R. v. Kurek , 2018 SKQB 168 ; − R. v. Langevin , 2018 ONSC 6020 ; − R. v. Newton , 2016 BCSC 1440 ; − R. v.

Ramsay , 2012 ABCA 257 . [ 18 ] Antonelli stands for the proposition that a mental disorder can be factored into sentencing in one of the two ways, or a possible

combination of the two: 1) it may have been operative in the commission of the offence but not to the extent of resulting in a penal deresponsibleness or 2) taking into consideration his mental condition, the sentence may be excessively severe [6] . [ 19 ] In Cook [7] , a twelve (12) years sentence was affirmed on the basis that the killing occurred during the infliction of severe bodily injuries to the victim, that the accused did not help the victim and tried to cover up his crime.

Cook also had prior convictions and his mental health was not a factor. [ 20 ] In McCormick [8] , the accused committed the crime while in a self-induced crystal- methamphetamine psychosis which resulted in a prolonged and severe beating which he tried to cover up. The Court considered that the circumstances amounted to a near murder and, considering the prior convictions of the accused, sentenced him to twelve (12) years. [ 21 ] In Lamb [9] , the accused suffered from schizophrenia and inflicted a severe beating with a hammer and stabbed the victim with a knife and attempted to cut off her head.

He then left her dying while he drove away and showed no remorse. This led to an eleven (11) years and three (3) months sentence. [ 22 ] In Macryllos [10] , the Court accepted a common suggestion for a sentence of fourteen years and a half (14 ½). [ 23 ] In Armstrong, the Supreme Court of British Columbia imposes a sentence of six (6) years in jail for an individual with no criminal record who caused the death of a romantic partner by hitting her on the dead with a hammer and then transported her body to a remote location, placed the body in a pile with other items, poured gasoline over and lit it on fire.

The accused had a long history of drug abuse and several suicide attempt. [ 24 ] That same court imposed a seven (7) years sentence in Newton for stabbing a person unknown to him while they were both riding a public bus. The accused, 25 years of age at the time of the sentencing, was in a drug-induced psychosis and had a criminal record but none involving violence. He pleaded guilty and showed great remorse. [ 25 ] In Chan, the accused experimented with magic mushrooms and experienced unpleasant side effects and became psychotic and delusional.

He broke into his father’s home through a window and stabbed him and his father’s life partner. The first died, the second was gravely injured. Chan had no criminal record, and was profoundly remorseful.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice imposed a sentence of five (5) years. [ 26 ] In Kehl, the same Court accepted the joint submissions of the parties and imposed five (5) years in jail to a first time offender with no history of violent behavior with some history of mental health issues who was profusely remorseful. [ 27 ] Also, in Langevin, it imposed an eight (8) years sentence on an accused who was clearly in the midst of a psychotic episode, induced by his use of cocaine, when he stabbed his female partner of nine years while she was running away from him on the street outside their residence.

The accused had no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty and experienced great remorse. [ 28 ] In Kureck, the Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan imposed a sentence of six (6) years imprisonment after a plea of guilty to manslaughter for a woman who killed her uncle, without provocation, by stabbing him while she was very intoxicated by alcohol. Gladue factors were evaluated for the purposed of sentencing.

She had no previous criminal record and was suffering from paranoia and hallucinations around the time of the offense. [ 29 ] With respect, the jurisprudence cited by the defence appears more relevant in the sense that it relates to cases where the mental state of the accused at the time of the perpetration of the crime is a relevant factor to consider, as is the case here. [ 30 ] Indeed, the Court finds that the mental condition of Ye did play a role in the commission of the offense. The proof is unequivocal on this matter and is not contested.

Obviously, the Court is not bound by it, but it must have valid reasons not to accept it. The Crown does not plead any, and the Court does not find one. Thus it remains a question of what weight that proof should be given. [ 31 ] Dr Jocelyne Brault, psychiatrist, is of the opinion, in her May 30 th 2019 report, that Ye was in the midst of a sufficiently important psychotic episode at the time of the delict to alter her contact with reality [11] .

She confirms her opinion in her March 2019 expertise [12] , reiterating that Ye acted to protect herself and her daughter because she felt they were both in danger [13] . [ 32 ] The evolution report of Dr Mylene Anctil , psychiatrist, and Laurence Bergeron, criminologist, of July 6 th 2020 [14] , shows that the condition of Ye is stabilized, that she responds well to the medication and that she collaborates in her treatment. [ 33 ] Thus, there is no doubt that her moral blameworthiness is reduced because of her mental condition at the time of the offence. [ 34 ] In this regards in Badhesa [15] , the British Columbia Court of Appeal states: [40] However, an offender’s volitional and decision-making capacity in connection with self-induced intoxication and related violence may stem, at least in part, from mental illness or other cognitive disability.

Depending on the circumstances, both the mental illness and related self-induced intoxication may reduce the offender’s moral culpability. The criminal law views individuals as autonomous and rational beings and seeks to impose criminal liability solely on those who are responsible for the state they were in when an offence is committed: R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58 at paras. 48 , 68. Similar concerns animate the determination of a fit sentence: R. v. Friesen, 2016 MBCA 50 at para. 18 .

Impaired reasoning, delusional disorders and other compromised mental conditions distinguish those afflicted from ordinary, fully accountable offenders for sentencing purposes: R. v. Ayorech, 2012 ABCA 82 at para. 12 . Where an offender is found to be criminally responsible, but suffering from a serious mental illness or disability, a more lenient disposition than would otherwise be called for may well be appropriate to reflect a diminished level of criminal responsibility: R. v. Ramsay , 2012 ABCA 257 at para. 21 . […]

[42] When mental illness causes or contributes to the commission of an offence, it is a mitigating factor and a sentence may be reduced because the offender’s moral culpability is attenuated. In these circumstances, general deterrence is a less weighty consideration because a mentally ill offender is not an appropriate medium for making an example to others: R. v. Belcourt, 2010 ABCA 319 at para. 8 . Nor does specific deterrence or severe punishment play a significant role in the determination of a fit sentence.

The former is meaningless when an offender is out of touch with reality and the latter may be disproportionate to the offender’s degree of responsibility: R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114 at para. 38 . […] [44] When assessing a fit sentence, the judge should attribute a degree of moral culpability to the offender commensurate with the magnitude of the mental illness and its overall role in the commission of the offence: Ramsay at para. 25 .

Where mental illness played a central role, the importance of deterrence and punishment should be given less weight and treatment and public protection concerns should be increased: Batisse at para. 38 . This decreased emphasis on deterrence and punishment is consistent with the proportionality principle, which is the sine qua non of a just sanction: R. v.

Safarzadeh-Markhali , 2016 SCC 14 at para. 70 ; Ellis at para. 183. and concludes that a sentence of ten years for manslaughter should be reduced to seven years considering that the accused suffered from a serious condition of depressive episodes, accompanied in their acute stages by major psychotic features which meant that he experienced nihilistic delusions, perceptional disturbances and auditory hallucinations. [ 35 ] All this considered, the Court finds that a sentence of 78 months is appropriate in the circumstances ot this case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 36 ] SENTENCES Meng YE to 78 months in jail less credit of 955 days of pre-sentence custody calculated at one and a half to one as 1433 days; [ 37 ] DECLARES that the remaining sentence to be served is of 939 days; [ 38 ] IMPOSES a DNA order provided by

section 487.51 Cr.C ., a section 109(2) (

a) Cr.C . order for 10 years and a section 109(2) (

b) Cr.C . order for life. __________________________________ MARC-ANDRÉ BLANCHARD, J.S.C. Me Camille Boucher Me Jasmine Guillaume DPCP Attorneys for the Queen Me Marie-Hélène Giroux MARIE-HÉLÈNE GIROUX AVOCATS Me Claude Berlinguette-Auger RABY, DUBÉ, LE BORGNE AVOCATS Attorneys for Meng Ye Date of hearing: 22 nd July, 2020