R. v. Teneycke, 2018 BCPC 60

Citation: R. v. Teneycke 2018 BCPC 60 Date: 20180315 File No: 43175-2-C Registry: Penticton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. RONALD ARTHUR TENEYCKE RULING ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HEWSON Counsel for the Crown: Murray Kaay and Kurt Froehlich Counsel for the Defendant: Michael Welsh, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Penticton , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 23, 24, 25, July 31, August 1, November 27, 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: March 15, 2018

Introduction [ 1 ] Ronald Arthur Teneycke pleaded guilty to the robbery of Cassie Clarke and the Eastside Market, the robbery of Wayne Belleville and the discharging of a firearm with the intent to wound Mr. Belleville, and failing to stop with the intent of evading a peace officer. All four crimes were committed in or near Oliver, BC, in July 2015. [ 2 ]

Part XXIV of the Criminal Code permits the designation of people as dangerous offenders after a hearing. The offences of robbery and discharging a firearm with intent are defined as offences for which a dangerous offender designation can be made under that Part. [ 3 ] Following a remand for assessment and the filing of an assessment report, Crown Counsel has now applied under

Part XXIV for an order designating Mr. Teneycke to be a dangerous offender. Crown Counsel seeks the imposition of a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. In the alternative, Crown Counsel seeks the imposition of a lengthy conventional sentence of incarceration, and an order that upon his release Mr. Teneycke be subject to long-term supervision for a period of 10 years. [ 4 ] Mr.

Teneycke concedes that he should be designated as a dangerous offender, but argues that the evidence on this hearing gives rise to a reasonable expectation that a lesser penalty than indeterminate detention will adequately protect the public against the commission by Mr. Teneycke of further serious crimes. Mr. Teneycke points, in particular, to the support of his daughter, his acquisition of the craft of carving native masks and his involvement with native spirituality.

He seeks the imposition of a conventional sentence of between 10 and 12 years, and an order that upon his release he be subject to long-term supervision for a period of between five and seven years. [ 5 ] In these Reasons for Sentence, I will begin with an overview of Mr. Teneycke’s circumstances and the four crimes before the court, before turning to a brief review of the dangerous offender regime and the relevant Criminal Code provisions. Next, I will canvass the principles guiding the application of the law to Mr. Teneycke's circumstances.

I will then turn to the evidence adduced at the sentence hearing, and undertake an analysis of the issues raised. Finally, I must impose sentence on Mr. Teneycke. Overview Mr. Teneycke’s Personal Circumstances [ 6 ] Mr. Teneycke is 55 years old. He was born of an incestuous relationship between his mother and her brother. His childhood was chaotic. As a young child, he suffered sexual, physical and psychological abuse. One of his sisters was murdered, and he witnessed his stepfather commit suicide. [ 7 ] Mr. Teneycke graduated from high school by completing the G.E.D. while incarcerated in 1985.

He also completed a silviculture forestry program by correspondence while incarcerated. [ 8 ] Mr. Teneycke has been married twice, but both marriages were of short duration and there were no children. He has had two daughters with two other women with whom he was in brief relationships. His daughters are both in their early thirties. [ 9 ] Mr. Teneycke was convicted in 1985 of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence. In 1987 he was convicted of robbery, and in 1995 he was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

In addition to those offences, he has convictions for assault, assault causing bodily harm, and multiple convictions for uttering threats. As a result of his convictions, he has been incarcerated for lengthy periods of time. Mr. Teneycke has almost always been under some form of court order while at large in the community. [ 10 ] He has been diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder, depression and anxiety. He suffers from lymphoma, arthritis, hepatitis C, Type II diabetes, gout, hypertension and a high resting heart rate. Mr.

Teneycke has a deeply entrenched addiction to a variety of controlled substances. His addictions are interrelated with his antisocial personality disorder. [ 11 ] Mr. Teneycke self-identifies as Métis, on his mother's side. He has taken some steps towards engaging with elements of his indigenous heritage, primarily while in custody. He has learned to carve masks and has occasionally expressed an interest in participating in indigenous culture. [ 12 ] In the summer of 2015, when the index offences were committed, Mr. Teneycke was unemployed. He was living with and supported by his younger sister in Oliver, BC.

The July 2015 Offences [ 13 ] Shortly after 10:00 AM on July 16, 2015, Mr. Teneycke entered the Eastside Market in Oliver, BC. The clerk was Cassie Clarke. Mr. Teneycke asked whether the store sold cigarettes. Ms. Clarke said no, but that cigarettes were available at a gas station nearby. When Mr. Teneycke asked for a basket, Ms. Clarke gave him a white plastic bag. Mr. Teneycke filled the white plastic bag with candy, including gummy bears and black licorice. Ms. Clarke stepped from behind the counter, to assist Mr.

Teneycke by showing him where he could find licorice that was sold in bulk, and then she returned to her position behind the till. [ 14 ] Finally, Mr. Teneycke walked toward the till, and told Ms. Clarke, “one more thing.” He drew a handgun from under the left side of his coat. Ms. Clarke described it as a big, dull silver handgun measuring 10 to 14 inches long. She could not remember if he pointed it directly at her. Mr. Teneycke told her to open the till. Ms. Clarke complied, and placed the cash drawer on the counter. Mr. Teneycke put the bills into the tip jar, and told Ms.

Clarke to put the coins in, but not the dimes or nickels. Ms. Clarke asked if she could leave the store, and Mr. Teneycke said no. He told her to go to the back of the store, so he would have time to get away. He took a pair of sunglasses as he left the Eastside Market. In addition to the sunglasses, he had about $195 in cash and the two bags of candy.

[ 15 ] Ms. Clarke locked the entrance door behind him, and ran to call 911. As she spoke to the 911 operator, Ms. Clarke saw Mr. Teneycke drive away in an older GMC pickup truck. [ 16 ] Mr. Teneycke drove to a service station, where he purchased cigarettes, a lighter and a bottle of pop. He then drove away. [ 17 ] The RCMP made extensive patrols on land and in the air over the South Okanagan. For five days, there was no sign of Mr. Teneycke or the pickup truck. On July 21, 2015, the pickup truck was located on a side road off McKinney Road, a forestry road south east of Oliver.

The truck was unoccupied and partially covered by a tarp. The RCMP immobilized the truck and searched the area, until darkness forced them to call off the search. [ 18 ] At 7:30 AM the following morning, July 22, 2015, Wayne Belleville came across Mr. Teneycke walking on McKinney Road. Mr. Belleville was in his pickup truck, with his two dogs. Mr. Teneycke was carrying a .22 calibre rifle and a backpack. Mr. Teneycke said he’d been hunting and was lost. He asked for a ride, but Mr. Belleville was going the opposite direction. He promised that if Mr.

Teneycke was still on the road when he came back, he would pick Mr. Teneycke up. [ 19 ] Three hours later at 10:30 AM, Mr. Belleville was returning along McKinney Road toward Oliver. He saw Mr. Teneycke and stopped to give him a ride. [ 20 ] Shortly after they began driving, Mr. Teneycke began to speak about the police activity in the area. Mr. Belleville asked him what his name was, and he said his name was “Robert Teneycke”. Mr. Belleville recognized his surname, and told Mr. Teneycke that Mr. Teneycke had to get out of the truck, or he would drive him to the RCMP. [ 21 ] Mr. Belleville stopped the truck. Mr.

Teneycke produced a handgun from his backpack and threatened to shoot Mr. Belleville. Mr. Belleville grabbed the keys from the ignition and jumped out, calling for his two dogs to come with him. As Mr. Belleville ran away, Mr. Teneycke shot him in the back with the rifle. Mr. Belleville fell to the ground, badly wounded. [ 22 ] Mr. Teneycke got out of the pickup truck and walked over to Mr. Belleville. Mr. Teneycke held the handgun to Mr. Belleville’s head. Mr. Teneycke demanded that Mr. Belleville hand over his cell phone and the truck keys. Mr. Belleville gave the phone and the keys to him, and Mr.

Teneycke walked back to the truck. When he got there, he turned, raised the rifle and aimed it again at Mr. Belleville. Mr. Belleville and his dogs scrambled for cover, and Mr. Teneycke drove away in the truck. [ 23 ] Mr. Belleville managed to get back to McKinney Road, where he collapsed unconscious. He was found shortly after by a passer-by, who drove him down the road to meet an ambulance. Mr. Belleville was flown to Kelowna General Hospital and rushed into surgery. The bullet that struck him had torn open his spleen, and the organ had to be removed. In addition, one of his lungs had collapsed.

He spent eight days in the hospital. [ 24 ] Meanwhile, the RCMP conducted patrols looking for Mr. Teneycke. They were unable to locate him. [ 25 ] The following day, July 23, 2015, Constable Caruso of the RCMP was on patrol in Cawston, a small community west of Oliver. He saw Mr. Belleville’s pickup truck, and recognized the driver as Mr. Teneycke. When Mr. Teneycke drove away, Constable Caruso activated his vehicle’s emergency lights. Mr. Teneycke did not stop.

Instead, he sped up and turned into the Village Hills Orchard, where Constable Caruso lost sight of him. [ 26 ] Constable Harper heard Constable Caruso broadcast his contact with Mr. Teneycke over the radio. She located Mr. Teneycke in the truck driving down Fairview Road, and pursued him until the pilot of a police helicopter told her that he had the vehicle in sight, and she could pull back. Constable Harper stopped, and set up a spike belt in case Mr.

Teneycke turned and came back up Fairview Road. [ 27 ] Members of the RCMP Emergency Response Team were directed by the helicopter pilot to set up a road block on Fairview Road ahead of Mr. Teneycke. When Mr. Teneycke approached, though, he saw them in time to turn around and drive the other way, back up Fairview Road. Mr. Teneycke was able to drive around the spike belt set up by Constable Harper. She saw him laughing as he drove by. [ 28 ] Mr. Teneycke continued up Fairview Road at speeds of up to 100 km/h. He ignored the lights and sirens of the pursuing police vehicles.

He was able to drive around Constable Caruso’s vehicle, which had been parked across Fairview Road. [ 29 ] Corporal Burke was part of the group in pursuit. He was driving a marked Dodge Suburban, a large sport-utility vehicle. At the end of the gravel portion of Fairview Road, Corporal Burke caught up to Mr. Teneycke as Mr. Teneycke crossed a cattle guard and turned left. Corporal Burke rammed the left rear side of Mr. Teneycke’s truck with the front of the Suburban. The truck spun, but continued driving towards Cawston. [ 30 ] Near the intersection of Fairview Road and Lowe Drive, Corporal Burke caught up to Mr.

Teneycke again. He rammed the truck a second time. Mr. Teneycke still did not stop. He continued south on Lowe Drive, and then began to slow and pull to the shoulder. Corporal Burke saw Mr. Teneycke stop next to three orchard workers, and then pick up something from the passenger seat. Fearing that the three civilians might be taken hostage, Corporal Burke accelerated and rammed his Suburban into the back of the truck that Mr. Teneycke was driving. [ 31 ] The truck was knocked over forty feet forward into an orchard service path. Mr. Teneycke continued to drive, and Corporal Burke continued to pursue.

He rammed the truck a fourth time, with no effect. [ 32 ] Two other RCMP officers in a separate vehicle were also engaged in the pursuit. They were travelling on a parallel path through the orchard. [ 33 ] Corporal Burke used his Suburban to ram the truck twice more, before it spun out and collided with a large apple tree. Mr. Teneycke tried to reverse, but struck a group of smaller apple trees. Corporal Burke exited his vehicle and drew his service pistol. He

fired eight rounds at the truck, hitting the left rear tire and the back passenger window. [ 34 ] Corporal Burke ordered Mr. Teneycke to put his hands in the air, as other officers arrived on scene. Mr. Teneycke was taken into police custody at approximately 11:30 AM. Mr. Teneycke asked the police, “Why didn’t you kill me? Start something but you don’t have the balls to finish it.” In the course of the arrest, the police seized a .22 calibre rifle with seven rounds in the magazine and a .22 calibre revolver containing one live round. Police later discovered that the revolver did not work.

They also seized a machete. Mr. Teneycke was wearing a wrist band with a handcuff key concealed inside it. [ 35 ] In July 2015, when these crimes were committed, Mr. Teneycke was serving an intermittent jail sentence, and was subject to both a probation order and a firearms prohibition order. [ 36 ] Mr. Teneycke has been in custody since the date of his arrest. While he was in custody, Mr. Teneycke wrote letters to Cassie Clark, and to the Watch Commander of the Penticton RCMP. The letter to Ms. Clark is particularly troubling.

It appears to have been conceived as an apology letter, but digresses into justifications for his actions and attempts to cast blame on others. The letter concludes with advice for Ms. Clark about how she could write a book about the robbery, and profit from her experience with the “notorious Ron Teneycke”. The letter to the RCMP is a request that they “STOP HARASSING” Mr. Teneycke’s sister for helping him when he was on the run. [ 37 ] Both Ms. Clark and Mr. Belleville prepared victim impact statements. Ms. Clark suffers from violent nightmares, which always involve guns.

She no longer looks at the world in the way she did before Mr. Teneycke robbed her. For his part, the shooting left Mr. Belleville with emotional and physical scars that will trouble him for the rest of his life. The Dangerous Offender Regime Criminal Code Provisions [ 38 ] Let me turn from the facts to the law. These are the provisions of Parts XXIII and XXIV of the Criminal Code that are most relevant to Mr. Teneycke’s sentence hearing:

PART XXIII – Sentencing Purpose 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. Fundamental principle of sentencing 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Other sentencing principles 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing… … (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; … (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

PART XXIV – Dangerous Offenders

Definitions 752 In this Part, … “serious personal injury offence” means (

a) an indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first-degree murder or second-degree murder, involving (

i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or (ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage upon another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years or more … Application for finding that an offender is a dangerous offender 753(1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied (

a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (

a) of the definition of that expression in

section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing (

i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour 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 or her behaviour, (ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour… … Sentence for dangerous offender

(4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall (

a) impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period; (

b) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted — which must be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years — and order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years; or (

c) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted. Sentence of indeterminate detention

(4.1) The court shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period unless it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure under paragraph (4)(

b) or (

c) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence. ... If offender not found to be dangerous offender

(5) If the court does not find an offender to be a dangerous offender, (

a) the court may treat the application as an application to find the offender to be a long-term offender,

section 753.1 applies to the application and the court may either find that the offender is a long-term offender or hold another hearing for that purpose; or (

b) the court may impose sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted. ... Application for finding that an offender is a long-term offender 753.1(1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that

(

a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has beenconvicted; (

b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and (

c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. Sentence for long-term offender

(3) If the court finds an offender to be a long-term offender, it shall (

a) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted, which must be a minimum punishment ofimprisonment for a term of two years; and (

b) order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years. … If offender not found to be long-term offender

(6) If the court does not find an offender to be a long-term offender, the court shall impose sentence for the offence for which theoffender has been convicted. Principles Guiding the Application of the Law to Mr. Teneycke’s Circumstances [39] The dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code have been considered in a number of appellate decisions; most recentlyby the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64. Counsel filed a joint book of authorities, for which I was grateful.

Iwill attach the index to that book as an appendix to these reasons. [40] Based on those authorities, it is clear that the law creates a two-stage process. The first stage is the designation stage, and thesecond stage is the penalty stage. “The designation stage is concerned with assessing the future threat posed by an offender.

The penaltystage is concerned with imposing the appropriate sentence to manage the established threat.” Boutilier, supra at para. 31. [41] At the designation stage, the designation of the offender as a dangerous offender must be made if the sentencing judge issatisfied that the statutory criteria under section 753 (1) have been met. The offence or offences must be serious personal injury offences,within the definition in

section 752. The sentencing judge must be satisfied on the evidence, first, that the offender poses a highlikelihood of harmful recidivism and, second, that his or her conduct is intractable. Intractable conduct is behaviour that the offender isunable to surmount. The legislation requires sentencing judges to conduct a prospective assessment of dangerousness. This ensures thatonly offenders who pose a tremendous future risk are designated as dangerous offenders and must face the possibility of an indeterminatesentence of incarceration.

Boutilier, supra at para 27. [42] If the offender is designated as a dangerous offender, the sentence hearing moves on to the penalty stage. At the penalty stage,the sentencing judge must impose an indeterminate sentence of incarceration, unless the judge is satisfied that there is a reasonableexpectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public.

The sentencing judge must impose the least intrusive sentencerequired to achieve the primary purpose of the dangerous offender regime: Boutilier, supra at para. 60. [43] The sentencing judge is required to consider all sentencing principles in order to determine what sentence is fit for a specificoffender: Boutilier, supra at para. 54.

Moral culpability, the seriousness of the offences, mitigating factors and sentencing principlesdeveloped for indigenous offenders are all considered as parts of the sentencing process under the dangerous offender regime. [44] The sentencing judge is under an obligation to conduct a thorough inquiry that considers all of the evidence presented duringthe hearing, in order to determine a fit sentence. There is no presumption that an indeterminate sentence of incarceration is appropriate.

Properly read and applied, section 753 (4.1) does not create one: Boutilier, supra, at paras. 68 and 71. [45] The onus is different at the penalty stage than it is at the designation stage. At the designation stage, the burden of proof is onthe Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements contained within sections 753 (1) (

a) or 753 (1) (b): R. v. Currie, (SCC), [1997] 2 SCR 260 at para 25, cited in Boutilier, supra at para 36. [46] The approach is slightly different at the penalty stage. In Boutilier, supra, at para. 68, the majority cited part of the followingpassage written by Joseph A. Neuberger, Assessing Dangerousness: Guide to the Dangerous Offender Application Process. Toronto:Carswell, 2011 (Loose - leaf updated 2017) at page 4-4.1: Subsection 753 (4.1) requires an indeterminate sentence unless there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequatelyprotect the public.

Following Johnson, this does not mean that the burden of proof is on the offender to prove the possibility of a lessersentence. The judge should instead take into account all the evidence available before making a determination, which will inevitablyrequire a thorough investigation.

Once such an investigation has been conducted, it will be up to the judge to determine sentence; there isno obligation on any of the parties to prove on any standard the adequate sentence one way or another. [47] According to the majority of the Court in Boutilier, supra, at para. 70, the proper application of the discretion under section 753(4.1) was explained by Justice Tuck-Jackson of the Ontario Court of Justice in R. v. Crowe, No. 10-10013990, March 22, 2017.

TheSupreme Court described the application in this way: First, if the court is satisfied that a conventional sentence, which may include a period of probation, if available in law, will adequatelyprotect the public against the commission of murder or serious personal injury offence, then that sentence must be imposed. If the courtis not satisfied that this is the case, then it must proceed to a second assessment and determine whether it is satisfied that a conventional

sentence of a minimum of two years of imprisonment, followed by a long-term supervision order for a period that does not exceed 10 years, will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence. If the answer is “yes”, then that sentence must be imposed. If the answer is “no”, then the court must proceed to the third step and impose a detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period of time.

Section 753 (4.1) reflects the fact that, just as nothing less than a sentence reducing the risk to an acceptable level is required for dangerous offender, so too is nothing more required. [ 48 ] Evidence of treatability will be an important consideration at the penalty stage of the dangerous offender inquiry . In R. v. Bragg , 2015 BCCA 498 at para. 55 , the British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to three elements of treatability which must be present to achieve the treatment goal of protecting the public by reducing the risk of violent recidivism to an acceptable level. The three elements are: 1.

Evidence of treatability that is more than an expression of hope, 2. Evidence that the offender can be treated within a definite period of time; and 3. Evidence of treatability that is specific to the offender. [ 49 ] An offender’s indigenous ancestry can also be particularly important at the penalty stage.

Section 718.2 (

e) is a remedial provision aimed at addressing the persistent over-representation of indigenous offenders in Canadian jails and penitentiaries. Sentencing judges are required to engage in an individualized assessment of all of the relevant factors and circumstances of the particular offender, including that person's status and life experiences: R. v. Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 at para. 75 . Any pro-social values or beliefs found to be possessed by the offender, including indigenous values and beliefs, can be used in crafting a sentence fit for that particular offender.

The Issues to be Determined [ 50 ] There are two broad issues to be determined. They are: 1. Should Mr. Teneycke be designated as a dangerous offender? 2. If so, should the sentence imposed be: a. a conventional sentence, followed by probation, or b. a conventional sentence, followed by a long-term supervision order, or c. an indeterminate sentence? [ 51 ] Although counsel for Mr. Teneycke has conceded that his designation as a dangerous offender is called for in the circumstances, I will review the evidence that bears on that issue to ensure that the concession is appropriate. The Evidence at Mr.

Teneycke’s Sentence Hearing [ 52 ] This hearing took place over parts of several weeks in the summer and fall of 2017. Crown and defence counsel filed an agreed statement of facts, and about two dozen binders of transcripts, records, reports and assessments, all relating to Mr. Teneycke. In addition, the Crown called seven witnesses to testify in person and be cross-examined by counsel for Mr. Teneycke. No one was called to testify on behalf of Mr. Teneycke, but with the consent of the Crown he filed a number of certificates and a letter from his treating physician.

There was no Gladue report. [ 53 ] The first two witnesses were Dr. Ronald Chale, who gave an expert opinion in the area of forensic psychiatric medicine, and Dr. Wilbert Reimer, who gave an expert opinion in the area of forensic psychology, the assessment of risk and the management of high-risk offenders in the community. [ 54 ] The next witnesses were Grant Anderson and Pat Patterson. Mr. Anderson and Ms.

Patterson work for the Correctional Service of Canada and testified with respect to programming available for offenders in federal penitentiaries and the Integrated Correctional Program Model, and with respect to the supervision and risk management for offenders on parole and Long-Term Supervision Orders. [ 55 ] Finally, the Crown called Michael Cliffe, Mike Kent and Ginger McLean. Mr. Cliffe, Mr. Kent and Ms. McLean are employees of the British Columbia Corrections Service, and gave evidence of their experience supervising Mr. Teneycke in the community while he was subject to probation and bail orders. Mr.

Teneycke’s Criminal Record [ 56 ] Mr. Teneycke’s record of criminal convictions was filed as an exhibit. What follows is a brief description of some, but not all, of the crimes reflected in that record. [ 57 ] The first entry on Mr. Teneycke’s record of criminal convictions was made on February 18, 1981 when he was convicted of theft under and sentenced to pay a fine of $500.

He was eighteen years old. [ 58 ] On June 29, 1983 he was convicted of a number of property offences and sentenced to 10 months in custody. [ 59 ] On September 8 of that same year he was convicted of possession of a weapon and of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to 75 days in jail. [ 60 ] On June 26, 1985 Mr. Teneycke was convicted of assaulting a man outside a bar and sentenced to incarceration for two years. The sentencing judge described the assault as “serious” and “vicious”.

[ 61 ] Two weeks later, on July 3, 1985, Mr. Teneycke was convicted of breaking and entering and given a three-year sentence of incarceration, to be served concurrently with the two-year sentence imposed on June 26. In brief reasons, the sentencing judge recognized that Mr. Teneycke’s abuse of alcohol was a factor in his offending. [ 62 ] On December 4, 1987, Mr. Teneycke was sentenced to five years and six months for robbing a taxi driver. The reasons for sentence noted the use of a weapon and that the taxi driver was traumatized by the experience. [ 63 ] On July 22, 1991 Mr.

Teneycke was convicted of sexual exploitation. The victim was the teenage daughter of a woman he had married while serving the sentence for robbery. [ 64 ] On January 13, 1995 Mr. Teneycke was sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually assaulting a teenaged girl. The victim had been terrorized. Armed with a knife, he had taken her to a secluded area and forced her to commit a series of sexual acts over the course of about four hours. The acts included vaginal and anal intercourse, cunnilingus and fellatio. The sentencing judge noted that a psychiatric report concluded that Mr.

Teneycke had a significant lack of remorse, suggesting a lack of capacity for empathy as to how his behaviour caused others to suffer. [ 65 ] On July 4, 1996 Mr. Teneycke was sentenced to four years after being found guilty of uttering a threat to kill the probation officer preparing the pre-sentence report ordered by the Court for the previous sentence hearing in 1995. [ 66 ] On May 28, 2007 Mr. Teneycke was placed on a recognizance under

section 810.2 of the Criminal Code . On November 21, 2007 he was convicted of breaching that recognizance by consuming cocaine and morphine. Dr. Chale, who testified on this sentence hearing, prepared a psychiatric report in 2007. In the 2007 report, he noted the relationship between Mr. Teneycke’s abuse of non- prescription drugs, and his pattern of offending. He described Mr. Teneycke as presenting a high risk to reoffend in the future. [ 67 ] On June 29, 2010 Mr.

Teneycke was convicted of three counts of uttering threats, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from a peace officer and breaching a probation order. The RCMP had approached Mr. Teneycke to arrest him for uttering threats, and he had fled in a pickup truck. A police chase ensued, and Mr. Teneycke escaped before turning himself in the following day. He was sentenced to 10 months incarceration. [ 68 ] On September 30, 2013 Mr. Teneycke pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamines and breaching his recognizance.

He was sentenced to 180 days before credit for time served, and placed on probation for a term of three years. [ 69 ] On September 8, 2014, Mr. Teneycke was convicted again of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police and breaching a probation order. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of nine months incarceration. [ 70 ] Finally, on April 9, 2015 Mr. Teneycke was convicted of possessing explosives and sentenced for 90 days, to be served intermittently. That sentence was accompanied by a probation order for a term of three years.

He was bound by the terms of those orders when he committed the crimes in July, 2015. [ 71 ] Dr. Chale characterized Mr. Teneycke's record of criminal offending as "impressive and varied." [ 72 ] Corrections records indicate that while incarcerated Mr. Teneycke has participated actively in a number of programs in the federal penitentiary system. His certificates of completion establish that, while in a custodial environment, he has engaged in the process of learning material and participating in discussions. According to Dr. Reimer and Dr. Chale, Mr.

Teneycke is less stressed and better able to cope in an institutional setting. However, they both observed that attendance at programming had never been followed by a change in his behaviour. History of Supervision and Control in the Community [ 73 ] Michael Cliffe supervised Mr. Teneycke in the community while he was bound by a probation order, between June 2008 and June 2010. He testified that Mr. Teneycke was resentful of supervision, and lacked commitment to counselling. For example, in March 2009 Mr. Teneycke told Mr.

Cliffe that he would be contacting a particular counsellor, but in June 2009 that counsellor told Mr. Cliffe that he had not heard from Mr. Teneycke for 10 months. Mr. Cliffe found Mr. Teneycke to be confrontational when confronted with suggestions that he had relapsed into drug use. Mr. Cliffe conceded that Mr. Teneycke had never been charged with breaching a probation order by taking drugs, and that he could be relied upon to report as directed. [ 74 ] Mike Kent supervised Mr. Teneycke on probation from November 2012 until March 2014. He described Mr.

Teneycke as superficially compliant, willing to meet reporting requirements but not willing to engage on any other level. Mr. Teneycke was not willing to discuss his risk factors, or his sex offence history and he was not inclined to discuss interventions. [ 75 ] Mr. Kent had repeated discussions with Mr. Teneycke about his indigenous heritage, and aboriginal belief system. He said that Mr. Teneycke spoke about contacting an aboriginal counsellor, but did not follow through. Mr. Kent offered Mr. Teneycke information about a sweat lodge, but Mr. Teneycke did not pursue participation.

He was of the view that there was alcohol consumed when the lodge was built, and he expected that as a result there would be bad spirits associated with the program. Mr. Kent agreed that Mr. Teneycke’s criminal history brought with it a stigma that might make him unacceptable to others at the sweat lodge, and that could be a factor in his failure to participate. [ 76 ] Mr. Kent observed that Mr. Teneycke’s community support was not pro-social. His mother was ill, and fearful of him, and his sister was a drug addict. At the end of this period of supervision, Mr.

Teneycke was associated with two men who were suspected of making explosives. [ 77 ] Ginger McLean began supervising Mr. Teneycke in September 2014. She described him as pleasant to deal with, except for one home visit, but said his willingness to follow through on counselling was inadequate. He was referred to the forensic sex offender treatment program in November 2014, but was asked to leave the program after three sessions because he would not admit that he had

committed sexual offences. She referred him to several counsellors, but Mr. Teneycke did not take steps to pursue counselling with them. She agreed that depression might account for his inability to pursue counselling. [ 78 ] Ms. McLean was asked about drug use, and she said that she had concerns. Mr. Teneycke was very paranoid, and showed physical signs of drug consumption like weight loss and enlarged pupils. Ms. McLean heard from collateral sources that they were also concerned about his drug use. Expert Evidence: Risk, Treatability and Options for Management [ 79 ] Dr.

Ronald Chale prepared a report with respect to Mr. Teneycke in 2007. His impression was that Mr. Teneycke presented no evidence of a major mental illness, but that he suffered from polysubstance dependence, and a severe personality disorder. He described polysubstance dependence as a pervasive pattern of abusing more than one substance. Polysubstance dependence included an increased risk of aggression, and a higher risk of sexually aggressive behaviour. A severe personality disorder was an established pattern of dysfunctional behaviours that interfered with functioning in adulthood.

The traits of a severe personality disorder included the disruption of relationships and employment, a much higher risk for substance dependency, a high risk of impulsivity, chronic feelings of boredom, and a strong association with antisocial peers. [ 80 ] Dr. Chale agreed that an exploration of Mr. Teneycke’s indigenous heritage might assist in engaging Mr. Teneycke in productive treatment. He agreed as well that the tests that he conducted in 2007 were based on research done in the 1980’s, and that those specific tests were no longer considered current. [ 81 ] Dr.

Wilbert Reimer was requested to prepare a dangerous offender assessment, under

section 752.1 of the Criminal Code . He met with Mr. Teneycke on June 6, 2016. The Assessment Report was filed and marked as an exhibit in this matter. [ 82 ] Like Dr. Chale’s opinion, Dr. Reimer’s opinion was pessimistic. He said that: In

summary, Mr. Teneycke is a high risk to offend violently and sexually if released into the community. He has very limited protective factors and pervasive risk factors. He has little motivation to be successful in the community and prefers the familiarity of the institution. He has shown minimal if any benefit from previous treatment. He seems to be less and less concerned about how his actions affect others. It is difficult to envision a scenario where Mr. Teneycke could be able to successfully live in the community even with intensive supervision. (Assessment Report, Page 8) Risk Assessment Tools [ 83 ] Dr.

Reimer completed a battery of tests. Based on the risk assessment tools, Mr. Teneycke was in the high risk category on all assessment instruments. His results on the personality inventories suggest that Mr. Teneycke is open to treatment; however, he is likely to drop out of treatment early when he has to make substantial changes in the way he has to manage his thoughts, feelings and behaviour. Potential for Cultural Bias in Risk Assessment Tools [ 84 ] Mr. Teneycke is of Métis heritage. Dr.

Reimer acknowledged that questions had been raised about the reliability of some of the test instruments when the subjects were indigenous males. He said that, given Mr. Teneycke’s personal and behavioural characteristics, he would be considered a high risk to reoffend even if one were not to use the risk assessment tools. Mr. Teneycke’s Likely Treatability [ 85 ] With respect to treatment options, Dr. Reimer said, “we are grasping at straws.” [ 86 ] In Dr. Reimer’s opinion, Mr.

Teneycke would likely do best with at least five years of intensive individual therapy with a highly skilled psychologist in a setting where he addresses his own trauma history and his substance abuse, while learning more effective self- regulation strategies, before engaging in group therapy. In cross-examination, Dr. Reimer agreed that if this five year pre-treatment strategy was followed, it was possible that Mr. Teneycke would progress to an acceptable point. He emphasized that this was a possibility, and not a likelihood, and that it depended on Mr.

Teneycke being highly motivated and highly invested in the treatment. [ 87 ] Historically, Mr. Teneycke has never been particularly motivated or invested in treatment. He has occasionally expressed an interest in indigenous culture, particularly while in custody. When offered opportunities to pursue this interest in the community by his probation officers, he has done relatively little. His claims of personal growth were questioned by Dr. Chale, who could find no evidence of personal growth.

Availability of Recommended Treatment [ 88 ] Grant Anderson gave evidence about the Integrated Correctional Program Model, the program conducted in Federal penitentiaries by Correctional Services Canada. He said that the program was run by Institutional Program Officers, who were staff members who completed a two week initial training course. Institutional Program Officers were not psychologists. [ 89 ] Mr. Anderson also said that one-to-one programs were not available within the federal penitentiary system. The pre-treatment strategy, cautiously proposed by Dr. Reimer, does not appear to be a possibility.

Management in the Community [ 90 ] In Dr. Reimer’s opinion, the prospects of safely supervising Mr. Teneycke in the community are very poor. He said: Mr. Teneycke has a very poor record of community supervision. He would require a high level of supervision and surveillance if he was

in the community. He is not a good candidate for intense supervision due to his reactive nature and antiauthoritarian attitudes. It is difficult to visualize a scenario where Mr. Teneycke would be a good candidate for community supervision. Mr. Teneycke has such a long record of committing offences across a wide spectrum even when he was on community supervision it is difficult to recommend any supervision strategy that is likely to work. (Assessment Report , page 8 ) Analysis of the Issues Assessment of the Expert Evidence [ 91 ] I am satisfied that the evidence of Dr. Reimer and Dr.

Chale should be given weight. The evidence of both witnesses was candid and straightforward, and unmarked by any bias for or against Mr. Teneycke. Dr. Reimer, in particular, seemed willing to entertain any suggestion that might lead to success in making Mr. Teneycke less dangerous. [ 92 ] Any inaccuracy in the risk predictions generated by the test instruments used arising out of “cultural bias” or the age of the underlying research is more than adequately compensated for by the large body of evidence of Mr. Teneycke’s own actions, and his reactions to treatment and supervision in the community. Should Mr.

Teneycke be Designated as a Dangerous Offender? [ 93 ] The question of designation is the first stage of the dangerous offender process. This stage is concerned with assessing the future threat posed by Mr. Teneycke. Mr. Teneycke must be designated a dangerous offender if I am satisfied that the statutory criteria under section 753 (1) have been met. Mr. Teneycke has conceded that it has been. [ 94 ] When I consider the circumstances of the crimes committed in July 2015, in the light of Mr.

Teneycke’s 35 year record of committing violent criminal offences, his antisocial personality disorder, his untreated polysubstance dependence and its role in his pattern of offending and the opinions of Dr. Reimer and Dr. Chale, I can only conclude that Mr. Teneycke is not inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint so that future acts of violence can quite confidently be expected of him. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Teneycke should be designated a dangerous offender under either section 753 (1) (a) (

i) or under section 753 (1) (a) (ii), and that his concession is appropriate. What Form of Sentence is Required? [ 95 ] Following designation as a dangerous offender, the inquiry must move to the penalty stage. At this stage, I must impose an indeterminate sentence of incarceration, unless I am satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public. I must impose the least intrusive sentence required to achieve the primary purpose of the dangerous offender regime.

A Conventional Sentence? [ 96 ] A conventional sentence would be the least intrusive sentence that could be imposed on Mr. Teneycke, because it would not be followed by a long period of supervision. Given the depth, breadth and difficulty of the treatment challenges Mr. Teneycke is facing, I am satisfied that no conventional sentence alone could be sufficient to reduce Mr. Teneycke’s risk to the community to an acceptable level through treatment or other kinds of interventions. I note that Mr. Teneycke himself does not take the position that a conventional sentence alone could be appropriate.

A Conventional Sentence Followed by a Long Term Supervision Order? [ 97 ] In R. v. Bragg , supra , our Court of Appeal spoke of three elements of treatability which must all be present to achieve the treatment goal of protecting the public by reducing the risk of violent recidivism to an acceptable level. The first of these elements was evidence of treatability that was more than an expression of hope. [ 98 ] When determining whether there is evidence of treatability that is more than an expression of hope, I consider the following:

a) Mr. Teneycke has never shown any serious commitment to treatment, therapy or counselling. He has made many statements of intention, but provided little evidence of follow-through beyond mere attendance. Explanations of why that might change, such as his relationship with his daughter or his craft of carving, seem extraordinarily thin.

b) The treatment programs Mr. Teneycke has attended in the past have not lead to changes in his behaviour. Given his demonstrated resistance to change, there is no reasonable expectation that more treatment will lead to a different result.

c) The only treatment program suggested by Dr. Reimer, which began with a pre-treatment phase of one on one therapy with a psychologist for as long as five years, is simply not offered by the Correctional Services of Canada. It will not happen.

d) Following release from custody, Mr. Teneycke would be under long-term supervision. Dr. Reimer opined that the prospects for supervision of Mr. Teneycke in the community were very poor, and that there was no evidence that suggested that Mr. Teneycke’s pattern of offending would go into burnout. [ 99 ] As Dr. Reimer said, we are grasping at straws. The evidence of treatability does not even justify an expression of hope.

After a thorough inquiry into all of the evidence, I am satisfied that a conventional sentence followed by a long term supervision order will not adequately protect the public against the commission of another violent crime by Mr. Teneycke. Conclusion [ 100 ] I will deal with the ancillary orders first.

Ancillary Orders [ 101 ] Pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life. [ 102 ] Counts one, three and five on this Information are primary designated offences. Pursuant to

section 487.051 (1), I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the National DNA Databank. [ 103 ] With respect to count six on this Information, pursuant to

section 259 of the Criminal Code I must order that you be prohibited from operating any motor vehicle on any street, road, highway or other public place in Canada for three years. [ 104 ] The victim surcharges will be payable in the amount and at the time set by regulation. [ 105 ] Pursuant to

section 743.21 (1), I order that while you are in custody you shall have no contact or communication with Cassie Clark or Wayne Belleville. [ 106 ] Pursuant to

section 760 of the Criminal Code , I order that the following information be provided to the Correctional Service of Canada:

a) A copy of the report prepared by Dr. Reimer.

b) A transcript of the evidence given by Dr. Reimer on this application.

c) A copy of a transcript of the evidence given by Dr. Chale on this application.

d) A copy of these reasons for sentence. Sentence [ 107 ] Since his arrest, Mr. Teneycke has been in custody for two years, seven months and 20 days. He is entitled to credit for presentence custody at the usual rate, which in this case will amount to four years credit, and can be applied against the sentence on count six. [ 108 ] Mr. Teneycke, would you please stand? [ 109 ] Count six, the charge of failing to stop for a peace officer, is not a designated offence and therefore a dangerous offender designation is not available.

You are sentenced to four years’ incarceration, concurrent to the remaining sentences. [ 110 ] With respect to counts one, the robbery of Cassie Clark, count three, the robbery of Wayne Belleville, and count five, discharging a firearm with intent to wound Wayne Belleville, I find you to be a dangerous offender and sentence you to detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. _______________________ The Honourable R. Hewson Provincial Court Judge Appendix A: Index of Authorities 1. R. v. Ellis 2016 BCSC 2344 2. R. v. Boutilier 2016 BCCA 235 3. R. v. Frederickson 2016 BCSC 301 4. R. v.

Bragg 2015 BCCA 498 5. R. v. Boutilier 2015 BCSC 901 6. R. v. Allan 2015 BCCA 229 7. R. v. D.J.S. 2015 BCCA 111 8. R. v. Funk 2014 BCSC 383 9. R. v. Ziegler 2012 BCCA 353 10. R. v. Law 2014 BCSC 1854 11. R. v. Haley 2016 BCSC 1144 12. R. v. Barr 2016 BCSC 193 13. R. v. Oud 2016 BCCA 332

14. R. v. Hassan 2012 BCCA 201 15. R. v. Seymour 2011 BCSC 1682 16. R. v. Chand 2014 BCSC 579 17. R. v. Agin 2017 BCSC 131 18. R. v. Cox 2015 ONCA 769 19. R. v. Herd 2014 BCSC 1146 20. R. v. T.A.N. 2012 BCCA 498 21. R. v. Brogan 1999 BCCA 278 22. R. v. Bezdan 2001 BCCA 215 23. R. v. Holt 2015 BCCA 302 24. R. v. Suel 2010 BCSC 1054 25. R. v. Hanna 2006 BCCA 417 26. R. v. Berry 2014 BCCA 7 27. R. v. Gregoire 1998 120 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (Man. C.A.) 28. R. v. Jack (BC CA), [1998] B.C.J. No. 458 (B.C.C.A.) 29. R. v. Ipeelee 2012 SCC 13