r v. PATRICK SOUCY, 2016 QCCQ 5135

R. c. Soucy 2016 QCCQ 5135 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF GRANBY Criminal and Penal Division No. 460-01-028792-145 DATE: May 18, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

PATRICK SOUCY Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Patrick Soucy is accused of assault against Lisa-Ann Martel on November 22, 2014 in Granby. At the time, she was his spouse. THE FACTS [ 2 ] The evidence shows that Patrick Soucy and Lisa-Ann Martel went together for about one year. In the beginning, they had an excellent relationship and soon decided to live together. [ 3 ] According to Lisa-Ann Martel, the accused started to gradually become increasingly jealous and possessive.

For example, he constantly wanted to know where she was, who she was with, and worried when she was late. She indicated that the weekend preceding the alleged offence, she decided to see her friends in Sherbrooke and once there, expressly asked that he not contact her. She wanted to be alone and think for a few days. When she returned, the alleged events occurred. Lisa-Ann Martel entered the apartment they were sharing. The accused was waiting for her and abruptly told her that he believed that she wanted to leave him.

She did not know how to react and though she had not made her decision at that point, she replied yes. [ 4 ] The accused asked her if she was already seeing someone else. She answered no, that there was no one else in her life, which was true at that time, but the accused then tried to take her cellphone to check the call log. Lisa-Ann Martel was close to the entrance door. Her cellphone was in her pants' back pocket and the accused tried to take it. She stepped back toward the door. [ 5 ] During the scuffle, she slipped, with her back to the door.

She found herself sitting on the floor, her legs straight out and her back against the door. [ 6 ] The accused purportedly squatted or sat on her legs, immobilizing her, and spoke to her, passing successively from anger to sadness, or demonstrations of affection. In the same segment of events, he intentionally hit his head against a small piece of melamine furniture that was nearby, used to store shoes, and broke it. [ 7 ] The accused then allegedly put his hands on Lisa-Ann Martel's throat and she responded by digging her nails as best she could into the trapezoids of the accused, who quickly let go.

The accused had a violent expression on his face at that moment; Lisa-Ann Martel had never seen him so angry. [ 8 ] To calm the situation, she told the accused that she was going to have breakfast with her mother and would call afterward and that she wanted to give more thought to her position. She affirmed that her decision at that time was very much made and that she wanted only to leave the apartment. [ 9 ] That seemed to have calmed the accused, who took the complainant into his arms.

She then left and did not see the accused again without someone else present. [ 10 ] The events that took place when the accused assailed the complainant when she was close to the door are the facts which

constitute the offence. [ 11 ] The accused testified in defence. On the whole, his testimony is very similar to that of Lisa-Ann Martel.

Patrick Soucy related the events surrounding the complainant's return from her weekend in Sherbrooke in very much the same way; the main difference was that he claimed that he did not jostle her or put his hands on her throat. [ 12 ] Nor did she dig her fingernails into his shoulders so that he would release her. [ 13 ] Yet, both where their respective positions are concerned as to the subject of their discussions and the words that were uttered, the facts related by the accused are very similar to those of Lisa-Ann Martel.

As for the broken piece of furniture, he alleges that he broke it when he got up, striking it with his foot, not his head. [ 14 ] The accused, it should be noted, did not describe himself as jealous or possessive. However, his behaviour, including what he admits to having said, evidences the contrary. While claiming to not have exercised any unwanted force against Lisa-Ann Martel, Patrick Soucy did, however, deny having gone through the range of emotions that she described.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 15 ] When conflicting testimonies are rendered, the Supreme Court of Canada has established instructions for their analysis. In R. v. W. (D.), [1] the Court describes a three-step process as follows: 1. The first is to analyze the version of the accused. If it is believed and is exculpatory, the process must end and the accused must be acquitted. 2. Even if the accused's version is not believed in its entirety, if it raises a reasonable doubt, the accused must benefit from it and the analysis must end. 3.

Only where the first two steps have not resulted in termination of the analysis can there be a need to examine whether the evidence as a whole convinces beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then may the accused be found guilty. [ 16 ] The first step is thus to decide whether I believe the accused. In fact, I must specify that I believe most of his testimony, but do not believe that he did not assault Lisa-Ann Martel. Let me explain. [ 17 ] I accept his version regarding his various states of mind, going from sad to anxious to frustrated or angry.

The aspect that prevents me from believing him is that he acknowledges having acted in a way as to have the victim fear him or to act as a person who is afraid of him. [ 18 ] His testimony is not credible to the extent that he describes the victim's conduct, the way she behaved, in very much the same way as the victim did, that is, as the behaviour of a person surprised by the attitude of the accused, who steps back and adopts a defensive posture which, if I were to believe what he said, would be illogical. [ 19 ] Moreover, I find it hard to understand how his acknowledgement that at certain times he was angry can be transposed by the words that he claims to have spoken. [ 20 ] Upon Lisa-Ann Martel's return, his insistence on knowing whether she had started a relationship with someone else, which can only be a demonstration of jealousy, is also inconsistent with his claim that just before the said weekend, his relations with the victim were excellent or at least perfectly satisfactory.

His questioning, whereby he immediately suspected the victim of cheating on him, rather than, for example, wanting to understand his spouse's overall reasons for wanting to end their relationship, also greatly supports the victim's position. Indeed, the fact that his quasi-spontaneous or automatic reaction was to suspect infidelity accredits the controlling nature alleged by the complainant. [ 21 ] In view of these main reasons, notably, I do not accept the accused's testimony.

Similarly, his testimony does not raise any doubts in my mind. [ 22 ] As to the evidence in general, as I mentioned earlier, apart from specific gestures that constitute assault, both the context and the unfolding of the vast majority of events are acknowledged. [ 23 ] The account given by the victim is logical, detailed and precise, does not seem to be exaggerated and is convincing. With proof of each essential element of the crime being made beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is found GUILTY of the offence as alleged. __________________________________ Serge Champoux, J.C.Q. Mtre.

Cassandra Carola Counsel for the prosecution Mtre. Pascale Gauthier Counsel for the accused Date of the hearing: March 9, 2016