2019 MBPC 34, 2019 MBPC 34

CITATION: 2019 MBPC 34 File No.___________ Appeal No. ___________ IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA GARDEN HILL FIRST NATION, MANITOBA BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and GREG IVAN MONIAS Accused REASONS FOR SENTENCE (Excerpt) (Pages T1 – T5) April 24, 2019 Garden Hill, Manitoba Royal Reporting Services Ltd. 300 - 2010 - 11th Avenue Regina, Saskatchewan

S4P 0J3 Phone: 306-352-3234 Fax: 306-757-7788 Proceedings taken in the Provincial Court, Garden Hill, Manitoba April 24, 2019 Afternoon Session The Honourable Judge The Provincial Court of Manitoba C. Devine K. Anderson For the Crown J. Corona For the Accused T. Mroz Court Clerk Reasons for Sentence (Orally) THE COURT: You have not pleaded guilty to arson of a house pursuant to

Section 433 of the Criminal Code , although that was the original charge. The charge was amended, and you have pleaded guilty to arson to a vehicle and other property. You set fire to a truck, and an abandoned house caught fire while the truck was burning. This is an important distinction. Arson to a dwelling house is an extremely serious offence with a maximum sentence of life where the accused person has a disregard for human life when he set the fire. But the maximum sentence for the type of arson committed by Mr. Monias is 14 years.

Of course, that is the maximum sentence, and the minimum sentence would be a discharge, but it will not be a discharge in this case. I have already noted that most of the cases filed by the Crown dealt with the more serious form of arson, and even the other cases all dealt with houses that people were living in, with the exception of one, which was an abandoned house. In that case, the individuals who were very intoxicated, just like Mr. Monias was that day, set fire to a bunch of clothes that were lying on the floor.

So it was pretty obvious, I think to anyone, even really drunk people, that it was going to cause the house to start fire. This situation was not quite as obvious and with people being very intoxicated, even though it looks like the truck was just a few feet away from the house, one would not necessarily think that the house was going to catch fire from a truck. So there's a difference. The other difference is that Mr. Monias lives in Garden Hill, and Mr.

Monias was very much affected by the Gladue circumstances that we have taken into account: the transience that marked his early life, the substance abuse issues of his parents, and even that day, of course, he was extremely intoxicated. So although the sentencing objectives for arson are usually denunciation and deterrence, rehabilitation, and taking responsibility for his crime, are also really important objectives in this case. The community impact statement that was filed by Mr. Flett, the community justice worker, notes that this is another crime that was caused by superjuice addiction.

And it is another crime that has impacted the community negatively, this time a house that, at least potentially, could be renovated and used for someone to live in. That is a big deal for a community where the housing shortage is at crisis levels, from what I can tell. It affects the people I see in this courtroom, and it affects the people that I see when I am doing the child protection docket. It affects kids. It is a really big problem in this community. Mr.

Monias’ degree of responsibility in committing this offence is marked by what I have already said about his background and how colonialism has wreaked havoc on his family and him personally. But also, he was really drunk that day; he was extremely intoxicated on superjuice. So his case can be distinguished from many of the arson cases where either the person is a pyromaniac or has mental health problems or has planned to get some kind of revenge, or it is a situation where someone is doing it for greed or to profit, if they have an insurance policy, and so on. It was really none of those things. Mr.

Monias had a grudge with his brother-in-law, and in a drunken fit, he lit his brother-in-law's truck on fire.

As I already indicated in my comments to counsel, a major mitigating factor is his guilty plea where the Crown might not have been able to prove the case. He is considered a nice person and a nice guy in this community who helps his grandma. He does not allow drinking in the house. His family counts on him, his grandma counts on him, and so those things are mitigating to the sentence, but they also bode well for his rehabilitation and for a restorative type of sentence. The Criminal Code requires that judges not deprive someone of their liberty if there are other options that might be appropriate in the circumstances, and

section 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code requires that a judge consider all available sanctions, other than jail, that are reasonable in all the circumstances, especially when sentencing Indigenous people. And so I do look at what might work. The Supreme Court has directed us to ask the following questions; would jail deter or denounce this crime in the sense that it would be meaningful to the community of Garden Hill and to this person? Would it really be meaningful to him? It would be miserable for him, there's no question, but would it be meaningful? I don't think so.

Would it best serve to prevent crime and support individual and social healing? Again, I think the answer is no. What might best restore a sense of balance to Mr. Monias, to the victim -- which I think is all of Garden Hill, and also his brother-in-law -- and the community and to prevent future crime? And what would assist in having him take responsibility for his action? And what would lead to the reduction of offending? Those are the questions I ask when wanting to impose the best sentence, the most appropriate sentence.

And I think that in this case, the most important sentence would be a sentence that is going to give back to the community and protect the community and rehabilitate Mr. Monias even further. And so the sentence will be a suspended sentence with two years of supervised probation. The biggest payback to the community will be 200 hours of community service work. And you will very likely do that 200 hours under the supervision of Mr. Flett, but you will work that out with your probation officer. You will report to Probation Services within 24-hours.

There will be a 1-800 number on the probation order that Madam Clerk gives you when you leave here today. You will do 100 hours of the community service work within the first year and 100 hours the second year, unless you can get it all done sooner than that. You will continue to support your sobriety by taking alcohol and drug treatment programs. You will take any other counseling that might be necessary. EXCERPT CONCLUDED IN THE MATTER OF THE QUEEN V.

GREG IVAN MONIAS I, KRYSTLE PALYNCHUK, Court Transcriber, HEREBY MAKE OATH AND SAY that the foregoing typewritten pages being numbered T One (T1) to T Four (T4), inclusive, contain a true and correct transcription of the recorded proceedings taken herein to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability.

_______________________________ COURT TRANSCRIBER