2022 QCCQ 5170, 2022 QCCQ 5170

R. c. J.S. 2022 QCCQ 5170 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU « Criminal and Penal Division » N° : 550-01-121045-217 DATE : July 27, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE LAURIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecution v. J. S. Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr.

S. pleaded guilty to three counts of domestic violence on his wife: 1. On or about March 6, 2021, in Town A, district of Gatineau, in committing an assault did strangle K. R., committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided by

section 267c) of the Criminal Code . 2. On or about March 6, 2021, in Town A, district of Gatineau, did knowingly utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm to K. R., committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided by

section 264.1(1) a) (2)

b) of the Criminal Code . 3. On or about March 6, 2021, in Town A, district of Gatineau, in committing an assault on K. R., did cause bodily harm to the said person, committing thereby the offence punishable on

summary conviction provided by

section 267b) of the Criminal Code . II. QUESTION IN LITIGATION [ 2 ] The Court has to sentence Mr. S. for those counts according to principles of sentencing. III. FACTUAL FACTS A. General facts [ 3 ] Mr. S. and Mrs. R. were married at the time of the event for a period of 17 years. They had four children from their marriage (two daughters: 16 and 13 years old and two sons: 11 and 8 years old.). They were living in front of Mr. S.’s parents. [ 4 ] Mr. S. started an extra matrimonial relation. The couple were still living together, but Mr. S. was looking for a place to live apart from Mrs. R..

Even though that incident, they had an amicable relation. Also, he even recommended her to have an extra matrimonial relation. [ 5 ] On the date of March 6, 2021, she told him that she had one. He did not take it. He started to drink alcohol early that day. He insulted her and treated her of names. He started to pitch some small appliances out of their house in the snow. She asked his parents to come home to speak to him. During the time they were there, he was drunk but behaved properly. They left. [ 6 ] Later in the evening, he continued to drink alcohol and treated her of names. The children were in bed.

She decided to go to her bedroom. He came in her bedroom and treated her again of names. She asked him to leave her alone. He went out. [ 7 ] She locked her bedroom’s door. He came back to her room and he broke down the door. He had a pillow in his hand. He

jumped on her in her bed; he sat on her chest and put the pillow on her face. Also, he put one of his hands around her neck and shoulder according to video statement of Mrs. R. who simulated the gesture. [ 8 ] Meanwhile, the police officer received a call from a girl, who was their 13-year-old daughter, saying that her dad was hitting her mom and that he was intoxicated. They also had the information that firearms can be in the house, so the police proceeded rapidly to the address. B. Common facts by the parties stated in Court [ 9 ] Here are the facts stated to the Court before Mr.

S. pleaded guilty to the three counts: On the date of March 6, the police officer received a call from a girl saying that her dad was hitting her mom and that he was intoxicated. One of the children let them enter into the house and they could hear a woman screaming upstairs. When the police arrived into the room, they notice that the door frame was broken, and that the accused was on top of the victim, sitting on the top of the victim, on the bed, and with both hands on her face near the neck area.

The victim mentioned that after she was met by the police, she mentioned that he used a pillow on her face to make her suffocated and said: “I’m gonna beat the shit out of you”. The argument started because the accused had an affair a few months ago, and decided to come back with the victim who just met someone else so they started arguing. He started being aggressive towards her.

He is slapping her in her face, insulting her, then she decided to lock herself into the bedroom and this is when the accused, also near to the room and brake the door frame of the room, and what we have to mention is that the accused has consumed many beers during that day. The police officer can observe and notice on the victim, bruise on her arm. There is marks on her arms. She had strong red mark on her neck and her wrist were also red.

We have also to mention that the four kids were present during the event and it was one of the daughter who called the police. [ 10 ] Also, during the hearing, the parties’ attorneys shown parts of the victim’s video statement and the Court noticed that she stated: “ she can breathe at all time”. Moreover it is written in the victim’s statement. Most of their children witnessed the infractions. C. Pictures [ 11 ] The Court saw Mrs. R.’s pictures taken after Mr. S.’s assault.

The Court noticed: big bruises on her left elbow and right bicep and also smaller one on her left bicep; scratches on her right shoulder; a big redness down her throat to her clavicle. D. Victim’s impact statement [ 12 ] Mrs.

R. did not testify at the hearing, but the Court read her victim impact statement and saw her video statement to the police officer. [ 13 ] She has different impacts which she stated in her impact statement (dated January 12, 2021) and in a recent E-mail (dated April 27, 2022): - Impact statement: Emotional impact: For example, She has recurrent distressing dreams related to the trauma of that night. She has flashbacks that are breaking her down or no emotions Some days, I have freedom from the disturbance and tranquillity and then I go back to painfully numbing lows.

I wish I could say I have no memory of the conduct. I have recurrent distressing dreams related to the trauma of that night. I have flashbacks that sometimes have break me down or not have emotions at all. I often feel worthless and I have low self-esteem. Sometimes I want to isolate myself. I struggle with fear and distrust. Physical impact: More than anything, I feel like the psychological impact has affected me physically. Lack of sleep, anxiety and PTSP have become a regular part of my daily life. Fears for security: I fear for my children’s emotional security the most.

After witnessing those traumatic things, I question how the outcome will affect their own choices, relationships and responses. Will my daughter think violence is to be expected? Will my sons think this is acceptable? I feel I am often disconnected from the reality of what happened. Drawing, poem or letter: I have been on an emotional rollercoaster. Some days, I feel like I can’t breathe and the next I am feeling brave, but I know in the end I will never be the same. I lost a part of me that night that I hope I find again someday. I smile on the outside but I’m a broken mess inside.

Some days, I let my tears fall and other days, I let my wounds hide. I cry for my children who I hope one day will heal and for my family which I thought nothing could steal. This is my life, my new reality. A broken heart, broken home, not the dream I once had. I try and see beyond my pain. I try not to remember the bad. - E-mail: Our children look to us as parents for safety and love and security and he failed them. They watched and heard him and robbed them of a lot of securities in their life. My boys do not say I love you to me without telling me "I love you mama, don't die" that started a year ago.

They say it every single day. Do you know how heartbreaking that is? My daughters suffered as they saw their own mother under a pillow in front of their eyes. How do you think they are? How do you erase that for them? They no longer want to get married one day. My daughter said it's safer to be alone. He robbed them of thinking love is safe and secure. Without consequences, they will feel like you are saying what happened while they were right there and terrified, was ok. I have nightmares about that night.

Do you know that women statistically take 7 times to leave a man who is hurting them and the only way they finally get out is to wake up and run or they die. The pain he ensued on me during the time leading up to that night, the rejection, that was the awful. To be told suddenly you are no good.

Vou are being left for something better. I was told I was not good enough every single day for months. I didn't fight back that night, I had no more left of me, when he brought the pillow upstairs, I thought I was going to die. Before he put the pillow on my face he said "no one will ever touch you again after tonight". My terrified 13 year old daughter saved my life. She will never forget that night and I wish so badly I could take that away from them. I want them forget that fear.

He tried to convince everyone he wanted to reunite his family after this, he manipulated me to make this better for him, he didn't care what I was battling, it was about him. I thought I was going to become a statistic, because I fell into the same trap of manipulation that they do. You don't think that will be you. You can't imagine what that is like until you're living it. The power that rejection has over you, is debilitating. You lose yourself completely. A part of me had already died, I didn't know who I was anymore. I wasn't good enough and I was lost in a world I never saw myself in.

I felt trapped by acts of coercive control. He knew who was at my house, for how long, he viewed my phone bill, why control me any longer when you are with someone else the whole time? Why ?? I have held myself together for my children, but I break down often. Things that surround me trigger me, the smell of beer, the sound of glass falling to the floor, my hairdresser tugged my hair when brushing it and I was instantly holding back tears, remembering being dragged from my bed that night by my hair. My pants were pulled down. My private parts were kicked and punched as he yelled if that is how I was fucked.

My children could hear this. I got beaten for doing what he told me to do. He has taken away from me the ability to trust, or to love anyone romantically, the man who was supposed to protect me, told me to find someone else, when I tried to, I was beaten. So I am trapped now on my own and I live in fear that when he said he had let me go for him to be with someone else, I was still not allowed to. I was a prisoner and the impact from what he did to me has remained with me daily. I was already rejected, why did I have to be beaten too?

Why try to convince me and everyone else you have changed only to hurt me again? I am grateful I am here and breathing but a part of me has died. I am a victim of abuse and I was almost a statistic on March 5th because I couldn't fight anymore for myself. So l'm here to fight for my daughters and for my sons. E. Testimonies [ 14 ] The defence assigned 4 witnesses during the representations on sentencing and Mr. S. also testified. 1) Reverent W. [ 15 ] Mr. S. is doing volunteering for a church once a week, for Mr. D. W., pastor of the church. In the eventuality that Mr.

S. has a criminal record, he will not be able to do volunteering anymore for the church. According to Mr. St. W., Mr. S. is a sincere, polite, helpful and honest person. 2) Mr. S.’s mother [ 16 ] The mother of Mr. S., M. S., declared that since the event, Mr. S. is improving himself while doing therapies. He does not drink alcohol since the event and she is convinced that he will not do that anymore. He was devastated and was crying every day. 3) Mr. S.’s father [ 17 ] Mr. B. S., Mr. S.’s father, has witnessed an altercation between Mr. S. and his wife. According to him, Mr.

S. was calm and he had never been violent even when his wife was insulting him and was trying to fight with him. 4) Mr. S. [ 18 ] Mr. S. admits that his behaviour was a mistake, he regrets it, and that he learned from his mistakes. He has 4 children, he wishes to continue to do volunteering for the church, to the “Soupe populaire” and help people. He does not want to have a criminal record, to visit his sister who is living in the United States, where he is spending some holidays with his children, and does not want his career at the City A to be ruined.

He did many therapies, and the presentencial report demonstrates that fact specifically. F. Sentence report [ 19 ] The Court is quoting part of the sentence report: Nature des traitements: Entre mars et mai 2021, monsieur S. a rencontré un psychologue à quelques reprises. Au cours du dernier mois, il a repris contact avec lui. Les rencontres ont lieu sur une base bimensuelle et lui permettent d'aborder différents sujets comme l'estime de soi, l'acceptation du changement, etc. En juin dernier, le sujet a complété avec succès le programme New Direction (12 séances).

Celui-ci est offert aux hommes aux prises avec des comportements violents dans un contexte conjugal. En septembre suivant, le justiciable a terminé le volet sensibilisation offert par Donne-toi une chance (5 séances). Tout comme la ressource susmentionnée, la dynamique des conduites violentes est abordée dans ce programme. Puisqu'il a verbalisé l'intérêt de continuer le cheminement amorcé, il a été inscrit sur la liste d'attente afin de participer au volet responsabilisation (12 séances). Depuis quelques semaines, le contrevenant est impliqué dans le programme Caring Dads (17 séances).

Puisqu'il a exposé ses enfants à de la violence, cette démarche lui permettra entre autres de mieux comprendre les impacts chez ces derniers, développer diverses compétences afin d'améliorer sa relation avec eux, etc. Enfin, sur le plan pharmacologique, après avoir été confronté à une période de stress au travail en mai 2018 en lien avec une promotion, l'accusé a consulté son médecin qui lui a prescrit un antidépresseur. Précisons qu'il a cessé en juillet 2020.

Néanmoins, après les incidents dont il est maintenant question, alors qu'il pleurait sans cesse et avait beaucoup de difficultés à gérer l'anxiété ressentie, il a repris sa médication.

Analyse de la situation délictuelle Issu d'une famille de deux enfants, monsieur S. a évolué dans un milieu familial marqué par le caractère colérique de son père et certains conflits entre ses parents. Ajoutons à cela leur consommation régulière d'alcool et de marijuana. En revanche, lorsqu'ils se sont joints à l'église chrétienne au moment où il a atteint l'adolescence, un virage important s'est fait ressentir. En dépit des changements positifs apportés à leur mode de vie, le maintien des exigences démesurées de son paternel à son égard et son amour conditionnel lui ont nui.

Malgré l'adoption de certains comportements dérangeants à l'école, le sujet a réussi à terminer ses études secondaires. S'étant ensuite engagé dans un programme collégial en Colombie-Britannique afin de devenir pasteur comme sa sœur qui pratique aujourd'hui ce métier aux États-Unis, il a toutefois abandonné ses études par manque d'intérêt et ennui de sa famille. Après être revenu auprès des siens et avoir fait la connaissance de sa conjointe qui est rapidement devenue enceinte, les partenaires se sont mariés afin de fonder leur famille.

Les années suivantes ont, selon ses dires, été marquées de périodes de bonheur, mais aussi de périodes sombres teintées de nombreuses querelles au sein du couple. Sur le plan toxicologique, c'est à l'adolescence que le justiciable s'est initié aux drogues douces. Soulignons que ses habitudes ont fluctué au fil des ans, allant de l'abstinence totale durant quelques années à un usage quotidien. S'étant également adonné à l'alcool au cours de la même période, sa consommation a atteint son paroxysme au milieu des années 2010, et ce, jusqu'à son arrestation en mars 2021.

À l'été 2019, alors que son couple battait de l'aile, le contrevenant a fait la rencontre d'une collègue de travail avec qui il a éventuellement eu des contacts intimes. Ayant développé des sentiments amoureux à son égard, il a annoncé sa relation extra-conjugale à sa femme quelques mois suivants. Ambivalent quant à l'idée de mettre un terme définitif à son mariage, ce n'est qu'un an plus tard, soit en mars 2021, qu'il a quitté le domicile familial pour emménager chez sa nouvelle amie. Or, immédiatement pris de remords, il est revenu.

C'est d'ailleurs à son retour, au moment où la victime lui a fait certaines révélations, que la situation a dégénéré et que les gestes délictueux sont survenus. L'analyse de la situation délinquante de l'accusé nous permet de déterminer diverses composantes qui sous-tendent les passages à l'acte. Une difficulté sur le plan émotif nous paraît être un facteur de premier plan, alors qu'il n'a pas su gérer les émotions négatives ressenties en lien avec les aveux de la victime.

Ayant dès lors ruminé celles-ci, une escalade du degré de colère s'est fait ressentir pour atteindre son apogée au moment où il a commis les délits. En définitive, ses actions traduisent une difficulté à résoudre ses conflits. Qui plus est, incapable d'encaisser le bouleversement connu, il a engourdi celui-ci avec de la boisson, ce qui a eu comme effet de le désinhiber. Enfin, en dépit de la gravité objective des crimes commis qui est certes très préoccupante, à la lumière de notre enquête présentencielle, il s'agissait de la première fois que ses comportements atteignaient une telle intensité de violence.

Par surcroît, il ne semble pas que de tels agissements se soient reflétés dans d'autres sphères de sa vie. Évaluation et recommandations Monsieur S. nous a offert une bonne collaboration dans le cadre de la présente évaluation. Il s'est montré ouvert à la discussion, en plus de nous avoir donné accès à des personnes-ressources et documents afin que nous puissions compléter notre enquête. Nous sommes en présence d'un homme en début quarantaine, sans dossier criminel.

Ayant pris conscience de la sévérité de ses comportements violents après l'intervention policière, il est rapidement allé chercher de l'aide afin d'éviter qu'un tel événement ne se reproduise. Repentant face à ses actions, il semble vouloir s'amender auprès de la victime et ses enfants qui ont été témoins auditifs ou visuels de ses agissements agressifs. D'ailleurs, à l'heure actuelle, il est toujours engagé sur le plan thérapeutique. En ce qui touche sa spiritualité, après les incidents de violence de mars dernier, il a renoué avec la religion chrétienne à laquelle il avait été initié lors de sa jeunesse.

Depuis cette période, il rencontre sur une base régulière le pasteur de l'Église des nations et fait du bénévolat pour ladite église. Ajoutons qu'il s'est rapproché de sa sœur qui exerce elle-même ce métier et qui le guide à travers cette épreuve difficile. Il bénéficie par surcroît du support de ses parents avec qui il entretient une belle relation, et ce, malgré certaines périodes plus difficiles rencontrées au cours de son enfance.

Dans un autre ordre d'idées, dans le but d'aider son prochain, il donne son temps et son argent à des organismes communautaires et amène parfois ses enfants afin de leur inculquer de nouvelles valeurs. En plus des démarches d'aide entreprises jusqu'ici, le sujet a complètement cessé de consommer de l'alcool et du cannabis. Il dit beaucoup mieux se sentir et souhaite maintenir son abstinence. En ce qui regarde sa relation avec la victime, en dépit de l'interdiction de contact imposée par la Cour, il admet avoir parfois entretenu des conversations avec cette dernière.

En outre, dans l'éventualité où elle souhaiterait renouer avec lui, il indique qu'il aimerait reprendre sa place à l'intérieur de sa famille. Pour notre part, considérant l'historique d'acrimonie au sein du couple et les motifs liés à leur rupture qui n'ont pas été résolus, nous sommes sceptiques quant à une telle perspective à ce stade-ci. En ce sens, afin de réduire le risque de récidive, nous estimons que le justiciable doit poursuivre son implication au

chapitre thérapeutique, entre autres afin de consolider les acquis faits jusqu'ici, mais aussi pour approfondir son degré de responsabilisation. Qui plus est, il serait opportun qu'il profite de son cheminement dans le cadre de ses démarches d'aide pour réfléchir au type de relation qu'il souhaite entretenir à l'avenir. Par ailleurs, afin qu'il soit en mesure de continuer d'apprendre à gérer pleinement ses émotions et éviter les débordements, le maintien de son abstinence est fortement suggéré.

Pour conclure, relativement à la capacité du contrevenant de respecter des engagements, hormis le fait qu'il soit entré en communication avec la victime alors que cela était interdit, nous croyons qu'il serait en mesure de se conformer. Qui plus est, au sujet de l'accomplissement d'heures de service communautaire, il répond aux critères d'admissibilité du programme. IV. POSITIONS OF PARTIES [ 20 ] The prosecution suggests a jail sentence of six months with a 2 years’ probation with surveillance.

[21] The defence asks a conditional discharge with conditions to follow therapy, to do community works and to make a donation of2 000 $ to an organism. V. ANALYSIS A. Purpose and principles of sentencing [22] The purpose and the principles of sentencing appear at

section 718 of the Criminal Code[1] (Cr. C.) which states: 718. Purpose — The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the lawand 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; (

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) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [23] The jurisprudence[2] considers that in a situation like this file, the emphasis should be put on dissuasion and denunciation ofunlawful conduct and to deter the offender and other persons from committing these types of offences. [24] The sentence should be in accordance with the following principle: 718.1 Fundamental principle — a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of theoffender. [25] In R. vs. Nasogaluak,[3] the Supreme Court treated about

section 718.1 Cr. C. in those words: [40] The objectives of sentencing are given sharper focus in s. 718.1, which mandates that a sentence be “proportionate to the gravity ofthe offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. Thus, whatever weight a judge may wish to accord to the objectives listedabove, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality.

Section 718.2 provides a non-exhaustive list ofsecondary sentencing principles, including the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the principles of parity andtotality, and the instruction to consider “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances”, withparticular attention paid to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [41] It is clear from these provisions that the principle of proportionality is central to the sentencing process (R. v. Solowan, 2008 SCC62, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309, at para. 12).

This emphasis was not borne of the 1996 amendments to the Code but, rather, reflects its longhistory as a guiding principle in sentencing (e.g. R. v. Wilmott (1966), (ON CA), 58 D.L.R. (2d) 33 (Ont. C.A.)). It hasa constitutional dimension, in that s. 12 of the Charter forbids the imposition of a grossly disproportionate sentence that would outragesociety’s standards of decency. But what does proportionality mean in the context of sentencing? [42] For one, it requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and thegravity of the offence.

In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function. However, the rights-based, protective angle ofproportionality is counter-balanced by its alignment with the “just deserts” philosophy of sentencing, which seeks to ensure thatoffenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and theharm they caused (R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 81; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at pp. 533-34, per Wilson J., concurring).

Understood in this latter sense, sentencing is a form of judicialand social censure (J. V. Roberts and D. P. Cole, “Introduction to Sentencing and Parole”, in Roberts and Cole, eds., Making Sense ofSentencing (1999), 3, at p. 10). Whatever the rational for proportionality, however, the degree of censure required to express society’scondemnation of the offence is always limited by the principle that an offender’s sentence must be equivalent to his or her moralculpability, and not greater than it.

The two perspectives on proportionality thus converge in a sentence that both speaks out against theoffence and punishes the offender no more than is necessary [26] The Court has to analyze the gravity of the offence by taking in consideration all the surrounding circumstances and the degreeof responsibility of the offender as much the reason of the circumstances and the personality of the offender and his past. [27] Also, The Supreme Court, in the case of R. c. Ipeelee,[4] analyzed

section 718.1 Cr. C. which constitutes the codification of theprinciple of proportionality in the gravity of the offence and in the degree of responsibility of the offender. This principle is a centralelement in sentencing. The Supreme Court explained: [37] The fundamental principle of sentencing (i.e., proportionality) is intimately tied to the fundamental purpose of sentencing — themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions.

Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord tothe various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle ofproportionality. Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction. First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of theoffence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justice

system. As Wilson J. expressed in her concurring judgment in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486,at p. 533: It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence; it must be a “fit”sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Only if this is so can the public be satisfied that the offender “deserved” thepunishment he received and feel a confidence in the fairness and rationality of the system.

Second, the principle of proportionalityensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principleserves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender. In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction isone that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other. B. Objective gravity of the infractions [28] The objective gravity of the infractions, for those counts which are punishable by

summary conviction, are liable to a fine of notmore than $ 5 000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years less a day, or to both (section 264.1, 267 and 787 Cr. C.). C. Subjective gravity of the infractions [29] Finally, the sentence should be guided by the following principles in this case: 718.2 Other sentencing principles — 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 offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's spouse or common-law partner, (…) [30] The Court has to take in consideration the aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The Court retains has: 1) Aggravating factors

a) Evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner (718.2(a)(ii)). Mrs. R. was Mr. S.’spouse for 17 years;

b) Most of his children witnessed the event; it is one of his daughters who called the police. 2) Mitigating factors

a) No previous records;

b) Plea guilty;

c) He has sincere remorse and regret;

d) He already followed therapies concerning his behavior in domestic violence and to improve is skills in parenthood. He already investan important period of time in therapies. Also he is doing community works;

e) He stopped drinking alcohol;

f) The criminal charges deterred him of committing criminal offense;

g) He respects the conditions except discussions with the victim but no complaint was made. D. Harmonization of sentences [31] Moreover,

section 718.2)

b) of Cr. C. speaks about harmonization of sentences: 718.2 (…) (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similarcircumstances; [32] The Court notices in his lecture of the jurisprudence, that when the offence is severe and when it is existing a pattern ofdomestic violence, courts do not grant a conditional discharge[5]. E. Other principles of

section 718.2 Cr. C. [33] In addition, the Court has to take in consideration other principles in

section 718.2 Cr. C.: 718.2 (…) (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; [34] This principle is known as the totality of the sentences. [35] Another one appears in the next paragraph of

section 718.2 Cr. C. and known as the step-up principle:

718.2 (…) (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; [36] In the case of Angelhart v. R.,[6] the Court of appeal wrote on that principle: Le principe de la gradation de la peine [31] Il est vrai que les multiples peines d'emprisonnement infligées dans le passé à l'appelant n'ont pas eu l'effet dissuasif escompté. Enpareilles circonstances, il importe alors d'isoler le délinquant du reste de la société.

Ce principe doit cependant être appliquéprogressivement. [32] Or, la peine infligée en l'espèce constitue un écart marqué avec la dernière peine de 6 mois imposée à l'appelant en 2007 pour avoirproféré des menaces en contravention de l'article 264.1 C.cr. Le crime n'est pas identique, certes, mais même en faisant les nuances quis'imposent, il y a exagération dans la progression du châtiment. Un tel écart contrevient au principe de gradation de la peine qui a pourfondement le paragraphe 718.2

d) C.cr. ainsi que l'explique l'auteur Clayton Ruby17 : 8.79 One of the features often disclosed by an examination of a criminal record is the fact that the sentence imposed or to be imposed inthe instant case is considerably longer than any previously imposed. Even when there is a marked increase in the seriousness of thecrime committed, there should not be too great a ''jump'' in the lenght of the sentence imposed: ''sentences for a repeat offender shouldincrease gradually, rather than by large leaps''. This is really no more than the principle that if less will do, then more is superfluous, nowreflected in

section 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, in Re Morand and Simpson, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal noted,as one of the reasons for reducing a sentence from four years to three years, that the longest sentence previously imposed was two years.Sentences will also be reduced if they represent an excessive increase over previous sentences. [37] This principle suffering some exceptions: Public protection;[7] Important violence;[8] Perspective of rehabilitation of the offender are limited.[9] F.

Other principles [38] The jurisprudence recognizes other principles that are not in the Criminal Code. 1) Guilty plea [39] A guilty plea usually grants a reduction of the sentence. For example, in the case of Dingwall,[10] the Court of appeal ofAlberta declared: [21] As to the length of imprisonment, we consider the facts demonstrate polite but persistent illegal behaviour.

The need fordenunciation and deterrence demands imprisonment, but we are of the view that these facts do not merit one year’s imprisonment.Considering the facts, and the Appellant’s early guilty plea, we would grant leave to appeal, and allow the appeal, reducing the sentencefrom 12 months to 6 months on each charge, to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the conditional sentence he isalready serving.

The term of probation will remain. 2) First Offender [40] A first sentence should be shorter as possible and the Court must take in consideration the particular circumstances of theoffender instead of only consider the deterrence. In the Case of Queen vs. J. H.,[11] the Ontario Court of Appeal stated: [21] (…)A first sentence of imprisonment especially for a first offender should be as short as possible and tailored to the individualcircumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence: R. v. Vandale and Maciejewski (1974), (ON CA), 21 C.C.C. (2d) 250 (Ont. C.A.) VI.

Application [41] Mr. S. was 40 years old at the time of the offences and was a first time offender. Mr. S. and Mrs. R. were married for 17 years.They are the parents of 4 children.

He has a full-time job at the City A for the last 15 years at the date of the presentencial report. [42] The Court has to take in consideration the jurisprudence who said that the principles of denunciation and deterrence paramountthe principle of rehabilitation in case of domestic violence.[12] [43] The evidence did not show up that it is necessary to separate the offender from society to protect the victim neither the society ingeneral.

Also, no breach of conditions is filed since the offences committed on March 6, 2021. [44] The Crown suggested an imprisonment of 6 months and the Defence suggested a conditional discharge. [45] The Court has to consider an unconditional or a conditional discharge (section 730 Cr. C.) when the offence is another than anoffence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law; or when the offence is another than an offence for which is punishable

by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life; and when the accused appears to respect the other criteria (best interest of the offender and not contrary to public interest). [ 46 ] Also, the conditional discharge (section 730 Cr. C.) is possible for those types of infraction in domestic violence with an aggravating factor of committing the offence on the offender’s intimate partner (718.2(a)(ii) Cr. C.). [ 47 ] The writers Vauclair and Desjardins [13] summarized the jurisprudence on unconditional and conditional discharge. The Court quotes that section: 1.

L'ABSOLUTION INCONDITIONNELLE OU CONDITIONNELLE • Nature de l'absolution 48.1 Lorsque l'intérêt supérieur de l'accusé l'exige et si l'intérêt public ne s'en trouve pas affecté, le tribunal peut prononcer l'absolution de l'accusé. Cette absolution peut être inconditionnelle ou conditionnelle, c'est-à-dire assortie de conditions du même genre que celles affectant une ordonnance de probation.

Cette mesure ne peut pas être accordée aux organisations et ne trouvera pas non plus application dans le cas d'une infraction punissable par une peine minimale ou par une peine de 14 ans ou plus d'emprisonnement. 48.2 L'absolution signifie qu’en dépit du verdict de culpabilité, aucune condamnation n'est enregistrée, de sorte que le prévenu est réputé ne pas avoir été condamné à l'égard de l'infraction. Toutefois, la déclaration ou le plaidoyer de culpabilité subsiste néanmoins; la personne devra donc répondre positivement à une question portant sur ce point plutôt que sur l'existence d'une condamnation.

Dans le cas d'une absolution conditionnelle à une ordonnance de probation, si le contrevenant est trouvé coupable d'une nouvelle infraction commise pendant la période de probation, incluant l'omission d'en respecter les conditions, le juge pourra annuler l'absolution et infliger au contrevenant une peine pour l'infraction originale en plus de toute autre peine.

Ce mécanisme confère à la mesure un caractère punitif et dissuasif efficace. • Le meilleur intérêt de l'accusé 48.3 Le meilleur intérêt de l'accusé présuppose que ce dernier est une personne de bon caractère, qui n'a généralement pas d'antécédents judiciaires et qui ne présente pas de problème en matière de dissuasion spécifique et de réhabilitation. Ainsi, la présence d'une autre absolution au dossier, même pour une infraction commise postérieurement, devra être prise en considération sous l'angle du caractère de l'accusé et mènera généralement au refus d'une deuxième absolution.

Cela étant, la Cour d'appel du Québec, dans l'arrêt Chevalier , a précisé que l'existence d'antécédents judiciaires n'exclut pas le recours à l'absolution dans la mesure où le Code ne prévoit pas le contraire. • L'intérêt public 48.4 L'intérêt public s'évalue, entre autres, par la gravité de la conduite et son incidence dans la collectivité, par le besoin de dissuasion générale et, enfin, par l'importance de maintenir la confiance du public dans l'administration de la justice.

La Cour d'appel du Québec a conclu qu'il s'agit ici de déterminer comment, en tenant compte des objectifs de dénonciation et de dissuasion, réagirait une personne raisonnable et bien renseignée si l'absolution était accordée. A cet égard, le fait que l'accusé ait tenté de tromper la cour lors de son témoignage milite contre l'octroi de l'absolution.

Le juge doit aussi tenir compte du fait qu'il n'est pas dans l'intérêt public que l'accusé perde son emploi et ne puisse assurer sa subsistance et celle de sa famille. 48.5 En fait, le tribunal doit analyser l'impact d'une condamnation en fonction de toutes les circonstances.

A cet égard, la Cour d'appel du Québec a rappelé ce qui suit : La règle d'or en la matière est qu'un justiciable ne doit pas, dans les faits, subir un châtiment qui n'a aucune mesure avec sa faute, singulièrement, comme en l'espèce, lorsque le justiciable n'a pas de casier judiciaire et que l'acte criminel n'a pas été prémédité et que cet acte criminel, quoiqu'évidemment répréhensible, n'a pas une gravité importante. • Pondération 48.6 Généralement, une telle ordonnance est prononcée lorsque les circonstances de l'infraction présentent peu de gravité alors que les conséquences d'une condamnation pourraient s'avérer très sérieuses.

Rappelons que l'article 730 du Code n'exclut aucun crime sauf ceux passibles d'une peine mini​male ou de quatorze ans ou plus d'emprisonnement . Les tribunaux ont accordé une absolution pour des crimes qui interpellent normalement l'objectif de dissuasion générale et de dénonciation. Il n'y a pas lieu d'interpréter la disposition de manière restrictive ou exceptionnelle, le seul test étant l'équilibre .entre les intérêts de la société et ceux de l'accusé, même en présence d'un crime à forte prévalence dans la communauté.

La dissuasion générale n'est qu'un facteur et chaque cas doit être évalué à son mérite, sans quoi « les tribunaux créeraient des exclusions là où le législateur n'en prévoit pas tout en créant un danger réel que la peine devienne une réponse au crime uniquement plutôt qu'une peine juste et proportionnelle au crime et au délinquant ».

Il y a notamment déséquilibre entre ces intérêts lorsque la loi prévoit qu'en cas de condamnation criminelle, un individu devient inhabile à exercer un métier ou une profession. • Conséquences indirectes 48.7 Le seul fait qu'une condamnation criminelle n'entraînera pas de conséquence immédiate sur l'emploi de l'accusé ne constitue pas une fin de non-recevoir à l'absolution; il suffit que la preuve et les circonstances indiquent une possibilité réelle à cet égard. Les conséquences indirectes du crime doivent également faire

partie de l'équation. Ainsi, la menace d'une mesure d'expulsion en vertu des lois sur l'immigration à laquelle fait face un accusé advenant une condamnation doit être soupesée à

titre de conséquence indirecte. [The underlined are added] [ 48 ] The evidence did not show a history of domestic violence during their marriage. The evidence shown some confrontations

between them but no physical violence. It was an isolated event during a 17 years’ marriage. The Court concludes that he was not involved in a pattern of domestic violence, but that event is affecting the psychological health of Mrs. R. and his children. More details appeared in the victim’s impact statement and e-mail. [ 49 ] The presentencial report is very positive. He did not wait for the sentence to be involved in therapies. In his undertaking, he has an interdiction to communicate with the victim. He spoke with her, but she did not complain.

According to the probation officer, he can follow conditions and he is eligible to community works. His involvement in therapies to change his behavior and his abstinence to alcohol and drugs are tremendous. [ 50 ] The worst infraction in this event is the assault to suffocate the victim. It is the action to put the pillow on her face to suffocate her that is the worst offence. Mrs. R. admitted in her video statement and her witness statement that she did not run out of air. Nevertheless, when she saw the accused with the pillow she believed that she will die. [ 51 ] The Crown proceeded by

summary conviction. The Court situated this infraction and the other infractions in the low range of the gap of sentences for those offences. [ 52 ] The jail experience and the criminal procedure deterred him of committing criminal offence.

He put aside bad habits and improve his behaviour with a great investment of time in therapies. [ 53 ] Also the Court is taking in consideration the analysis of the jurisprudence by the authors Béliveau and Vauclair and retains some factors on the conditional discharge: - This type of sentence confers a punitive measure and has and an efficiency deterrence; - The Court has to take in consideration the fact that is not in the public interest that the offender loses his job which assures the family subsistence; - Usually the golden rule in this matter is that the offender should not suffer a punishment that has no measure with his fault when he does not have previous record, that the offence does not show up premeditation and that the gravity of the offence has not an important gravity even it is a reprehensive; - Courts considered conditional discharge for offences when the principles of general denunciation and deterrence; - The simple fact that the sentence will not have an immediate consequence on the offender’s job does not mean that is impossible to pronounce that type of sentence.

It is sufficient that evidence and circumstances show a possibility. [ 54 ] The letter of the president of Mr. S.’s union is telling us that he is working part of the year as maintenance coordinator and the other part (months of snow) as a crew leader: « … if Mr. S. receives a sentence that prevents him from attending work, there is a good chance that his employer will place him on leave without pay and that his employment may ultimately be terminated. ». [ 55 ] The Court does not have other proof.

The Court believes that with a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, he can seriously lose his 15 years’ job, which will have a great financial impact on his children, Mrs. R. and himself. [ 56 ] Also, the evidence shows that with a criminal record on those offences, it should be impossible for him to visit his sister in the United States and to spend holidays there with his children. Moreover, that will prevent him to do community works at his church according to his reverent. [ 57 ] He experienced jail when he was arrested and spent 4 days, before he was released after he signed an undertaking.

That deterred him to reoffending and convinced him to modify his behavior with new skills that he learned in therapies that he followed after the event and before the sentence. [ 58 ] The Court concludes that it is in his interest to have a conditional discharge. [ 59 ] To determine if it is in the public interest to pronounce a conditional discharge, the Court has to answer the following question: does a reasonable person well informed will not lose faith in the administration of justice if a conditional discharge with severe conditions for a period of 3 years is pronounced? The Court believes so.

Those conditions has to be severe because the gravity of the first count and the psychological impact on the victim and his children are at the limit to pronounce a conditional sentence. [ 60 ] The Court has to increase the amount of the donation proposed by the accused from 2 000 $ to 5 000 $. That increase will have a lesser impact on his financial situation than to serve a jail sentence. [ 61 ] Also, the Court believes that it is not in the public interest that Mr.

S. loses his job and cannot assure the subsistence of his family. [ 62 ] Moreover, the following facts and principles favourite the conditional discharge: - he is a first offender; - the step-up principle; - the principle of proportionality; - the great investment of time in therapies and community works; - his abstinence to consume alcohol since the offences;

- that he is working; - the positive presentential report and that, according to the probation officer, he can respect conditions and he is eligible to do community service; - he already experienced a period of 4 days in jail before he was released on an undertaking; he was very affected by this experience in jail that deterred him to reoffending, to change his behavior and to look for help to do it. [ 63 ] The Court denounces the reprehensive behaviour of Mr. S. described in the facts and the consequences on Mrs. R. and his children.

The Court hopes that they will recover fast. [ 64 ] The Court believes that a conditional discharge, with severe conditions for a period of 3 years, is the most appropriate sentence for Mr. S. considering all the facts, circumstances and sentencing principles. [ 65 ] Mr. S. will have to keep in mind that with this type of sentence, if he is declared guilty of a new offence during the period of probation or if he does not respect the conditions of the conditional discharge, the Court could cancel the conditional discharge and could pronounce another sentence for the original offences and other offence.

That will punish him and deter him from committing new offense or to do not respect his conditions. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 66 ] PRONOUNCE a conditional discharge with the following conditions: Probation of 2 years with supervision and 1 year without supervision; Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; Notify the Court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation; Abstain from communication, directly or indirectly, with K.

R.; Not be in physical presence of K. R.; Not harass, bother, molest or spy on K. R.; Not refer directly or indirectly to K. R. on any social media; Not be within a 200 metre radius of K. R., or any other place where K. R. may live; Not be within a 200 metre radius of the home of K. R., at the workplace of K. R., and at the place of study of K.

R.; Report to a probation officer within two working days after the coming into force of the probation order, and thereafter, when required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by the probation officer, for 24 months; Expressly refrain from possessing, carrying or acquiring, for any reason, weapons, offensive or restricted weapons, or imitation weapons, including starting pistols and pellet guns, firearms, cross-bows, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, explosive substances, knives (except in restaurants and for a legitimate purpose) or edged weapons; Follow the probation officer’s instructions or those of any intervenor appointed by him concerning any therapy for a substance abuse problem, a violence problem, the continuation of your treatment with “Donne-toi une chance”; Attend AA meetings 1 time a month, provide proof thereof to the probation officer; Perform 250 hours of community service within 18 months; Pay 5000 $ at the rate of $ 208, 33 a month to “Donne-toi une chance” within 24 months, through the court office (cheque made out to Minister of Finance). [ 67 ] PROHIBITS the accused from having any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance in his possession for a period of ten years pursuant to paragraph (

a) of

section 110 Cr. C.; [ 68 ] AUTHORIZE THE TAKING from the accused, for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, of any number of samples of one or more bodily substances that is reasonably required for that purpose, according to

section 487.051 (1) and

(2) Cr. C., form 5.03. [ 69 ] ORDER J. S. to present himself at the Police station of Gatineau situated at 777, Boulevard de la Carrière between 1 pm and

3 : 30 pm on Wednesday, within 2 weeks, for the purpose of forensic DNA. __________________________________ SERGE LAURIN, J.C.Q. Me Sarah-Amélie Perry Fournier Attorney for the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions Me Mélina Cham Langevin Morris Smith Attorney for the accused Date of hearing: November 30, 2021, April 28, 2022