r v. MARY BLANCHETTE, 2016 QCCQ 15365

R. c. Blanchette 2016 QCCQ 15365 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF COWANSVILLE Criminal and Penal Division No. 455-01-013775-147 DATE: December 5, 2016 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX J.C.Q. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. MARY BLANCHETTE Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mary Blanchette is charged with possession of stolen property, i.e. four computers, further to crimes allegedly committed on May 29, 2014.

At the beginning of the trial, Crown counsel acknowledged insufficient evidence for two of the counts, with the result that this judgment concerns only the examination of the circumstances surrounding counts 2 and 4. FACTS [ 2 ] The trial was based substantially upon admissions. More specifically, defence counsel agreed to the filing of a narrative document entitled [TRANSLATION] "Summary" (Exhibit P-1), which describes in general the investigation that led to the search of the accused's apartment.

I note that the filing of this document means that if the persons who could testify as to the facts it describes were heard, their testimony would be in keeping with the

summary. However, this does not prevent the accused from testifying with regard to the same topics or expressing views to the contrary. [ 3 ] This premise is of importance and I will return to it later, after describing the other documents filed in like manner. [ 4 ] A digital disc containing the May 29, 2014 recording of the accused's interview with the investigator in charge of the case (recognized as free and voluntary), along with the interview log, i.e. a

summary of what the police officers in question consider as the salient features of the interview, was filed. Those documents and objects were filed as Exhibit P-2. [ 5 ] Also filed, as Exhibit P-3, is a somewhat similar log of the police officers' interview with Justin Lace, the accused's minor son. In his case, I have not had access to the video recording of the interview, if such a recording exists. [ 6 ] Exhibit P-4, consisting of the written statement of Jonathan Chénard, Lace's accomplice, was also filed. A two-page document entitled [TRANSLATION] "exhibit tracking sheet" was filed as Exhibit P-5.

It describes the items referred to in counts 2 and 4 and the places where the items were found in the accused's apartment. [ 7 ] A list of property stolen from Commission scolaire Val-des-Cerfs was filed as Exhibit P-6.

The present charges refer to the third item on the list’s first page and the last item on the list’s last page. [ 8 ] I reiterate, after checking, that the meaning to be given to these admissions, especially those concerning the statements of witnesses, is the following: if the person concerned, for example Justin Lace or Jonathan Chénard, were heard at trial, their testimony would correspond to the statements contained in the documents filed, including the examinations and cross-examinations.

This would apply to the whole of the testimony of those persons in Court. [ 9 ] In essence, the police were investigating a number of thefts that took place between February 28, 2014 and May 27, 2014 in all the schools on the territory of Ville de Cowansville and in the school at Sutton. On each of those occasions, the thieves stole mainly portable computers and electronic tablets. There were also occasions where more than one theft was committed in the same school. One theft took place in the locale of a dek hockey club. It has been admitted that Justin Lace and Jonathan Chénard committed all the thefts.

They were minors at the time. They filed written statements and pleaded guilty to having committed the alleged offences. The evidence shows that, on a few occasions, other persons may have been involved. [ 10 ] For example, with regard to the dek hockey club theft, the evidence submitted shows that the accused, Mary Blanchette,

allegedly went to pick up her son and his friend Chénard to help them bring back the stolen goods, which were hidden behind a business establishment a short distance away. This allegedly took place between April 1 and 3, 2014.

As concerns the theft at Sutton School, one of the accused's daughters and her spouse allegedly provided Lace and Chénard with transportation. [ 11 ] According to the same evidence, the total value of the stolen goods was almost $40 000, with damage amounting to $3250. [ 12 ] A search of Mary Blanchette's apartment turned up eight computers and/or tablets, four in Justin Lace's room and four in Mary Blanchette's room.

In the accused's room, two of these were stolen, a Dell portable stolen from École Saint-Léon on March 10, 2014, and an I-Pad tablet stolen two days before the search at Sutton School. [ 13 ] It should be noted that running shoes, hockey gloves and helmets, all stolen on or around April 3, 2014 from the dek hockey locale, were also found in Justin Lace's room, along with burglary tools, latex gloves, and Lace's distinctive coat, seen on the surveillance camera footage. [ 14 ] The accused testified.

Since I will do a more detailed analysis of her testimony further on, for the time being, I will limit myself to a brief overview of the testimony. [ 15 ] I note that, at the time (May 2014), Mary Blanchette lived with her son Justin. She lived in low-rent housing, a 4½-room apartment with two bedrooms, and no one else was authorized to live with them. Therefore, there was no other occupant in the apartment. They had been living there since early May 2014, i.e. less than a month before the search. [ 16 ] Mary Blanchette explained that her son Justin was 16 years old when the crimes were committed.

Prior to the search, she had no idea that he had committed the crimes. She started by describing the quality of her relationship with her son; for example, she claims he kept no secrets from her, but she then went on to say that, given his age, she ultimately let him do what he wanted and was not aware of his comings and goings. [ 17 ] By way of explanation, she said that, at the time, she had a spouse who lived in Ontario, more than three hours away by car. She went to see him frequently and stayed with him for several days or even several weeks at a time.

She would assign one of her daughters, Karen, to check on her son Justin during her absence, to make sure he had everything he needed. [ 18 ] She stated that she was a social aid recipient at the time. She had less than $600 a month for herself and Justin, with rent of $300 a month to pay. She said that Justin's father never made any support payments to her. Later, she changed this version to say that his support payments were $133 a month, but that they had stopped three years ago (before the search). [ 19 ] As mentioned, she claimed that she had no knowledge of her son's criminal activities.

She initially said that she never questioned him about the matter, even after the search of her apartment. Subsequently, she said that, in fact, she did ask him some questions, but Justin refused to answer her. [ 20 ] In general, she stated that she fully provided for her son's needs by giving him lifts as needed, food, accommodation, clothing and pocket money.

He lacked for nothing. [ 21 ] She attended the youth division proceedings against her son, but alleged that everything took place in French, a language she doesn't understand at all, with the result that she did not know exactly of what her son was accused, or what was alleged against him. [ 22 ] She was not aware of the presence of the computers found in her room. She had not seen them before, they did not belong to her and she did not know what they were doing there. [ 23 ] Lastly, she did not know any of her son's friends.

Therefore, she could not name any of them and was even unable to give the surname of her son Justin's girlfriend. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 24 ] Lying is harder than it seems. [ 25 ] This case hinges essentially on a matter of credibility. In a case such as this, where an accused testifies, the evidence must be examined in keeping with an analytical framework developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.) . [1] The following three- tier approach must be adopted: 1. If the accused's version is believed and is exculpatory, the analysis is complete. The accused must be acquitted. 2.

Even if the accused's version is not entirely believed, if it raises a reasonable doubt, this must benefit the accused, who must be acquitted. 3. It is only when the first two steps do not make it possible to complete the analysis that the evidence as a whole must be examined to establish whether it is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Only then can the accused be found guilty. [ 26 ] The first question therefore is whether I believe the accused's version. The answer is obvious: no. I do not believe it. [ 27 ] To me, the accused's overall attitude does not inspire any confidence.

Every time she is questioned she seems to take a fraction of a second to adjust her answer to that which appears more likely to have positive consequences for her.

She does not hesitate to say something and then say the contrary a few minutes later (for example: she has a good relationship with her son, who tells her everything, but who, it turns out, lives in her apartment as a perfect stranger; she is very present for her children, but is almost always absent; she receives nothing from the father, then receives support payments; etc.). [ 28 ] However, aside from her conduct in Court, there are a number of other very serious contradictions. Here are a few of them:

1. In her video interview (Exhibit P-2), Mary Blanchette asks to be spoken to in English, saying that she does not understand French at all. Before me, she says that she had attended the youth division Court hearings during which her son was arraigned. However, since everything took place in French, all in all she never knew or understood the charges against her son and the offences alleged against him.

Besides being difficult to believe, given the way the courts operate in the presence of an accused whose mother tongue is English, attentive listening to the police interview on disc P-2 undeniably shows that the accused understands French, which is contrary to what she claims. 2. Contrary to her testimony in Court, during the interview filed as Exhibit P-2, the accused acknowledged that she had seen and even touched the I-Pad tablet located in her bedroom dresser and had seen the other stolen computer in her closet.

In her words, she then knew that Justin had placed them there, but she added that she did not question him on the matter. Those statements are incompatible with her testimony in Court. 3. In the P-2 interview, she never mentioned that she was away from her apartment as often as she was and for such long periods to visit her spouse in Ontario. All she had to say was that her spouse gave her food she could bring back home with her. 4.

During interview P-2, she gave a breakdown of her money inflows, i.e. social aid in the amount of $342 a month, family allowances of less than $200 a month, and support of $162 a month, which is very different from her testimony in Court. At the time, at the police station, she said she had a very tight budget, which is all too obvious. However, in her testimony before the Court, she stated that she could meet all her son's needs, even, in her words that he had everything he might ever need, thanks to her generosity. 5.

I must again point out that she says she had good, even very good relations with her son Justin. She states that she never knew about her son's criminal activities. However, she admits as evidence, to serve as his testimony, the

summary of her son's deposition (Exhibit P-3), in which he stated (at 7:26 p.m.) that his mother hit him when she found out that he was stealing. He also said that he placed an I-Pad on his mother's bed (the I-Pad was found in her drawer) to seek her pardon for stealing (at 7:39 p.m.). That testimony, admitted as evidence and recognized as being the testimony her accomplice, i.e. her son, would have given in Court, greatly weakens the accused's credibility. She gave no explanation to justify the discrepancies. 6.

The accused finally mentioned, both before the Court and toward the end of her testimony at the police station, that she had noticed that her son Justin had brought some computer equipment home, but that she never asked any questions about this and did not consider it of interest to know the origin of the equipment.

Knowing that her son was unemployed and without any income whatsoever aside from sums out of his mother's very low income, and knowing the value of such equipment, either the accused Blanchette lied in saying that she did not wonder where the equipment came from, or she showed wilful and inexcusable blindness. [ 29 ] In my opinion, it is not necessary to discuss at further length the reasons why I am dismissing the testimony of the accused without any hesitation.

It appears to me to be an ill-woven web of lies. [ 30 ] I add that her testimony does not raise any doubt in my mind. [ 31 ] The whole of the evidence appears very convincing. The two computers, i.e. a tablet and a portable computer, were in the accused's bedroom and it appears highly implausible, to say the least, that the thief, whom we know to be Justin Lace, placed the stolen objects in his mother's room for any reason other than to give them to her. Moreover, this is his testimony. [ 32 ] Justin Lace had some other computer equipment in his own room.

It is hard to imagine why he would go around putting more of that equipment in his mother's room without her consent or authorization if the equipment was not hers. [ 33 ] Be that as it may, the evidence includes another, very incriminating, element. Jonathan Chénard, the other young thief who accompanied Justin Lace, testified (Exhibit P-4) that, after the theft in the dek hockey locale, the accused went with them to pick up the stolen goods at the rear of a business establishment not far from the location of the theft. The goods were put in Mary Blanchette's car.

She allegedly drove Chénard to his home and, in all likelihood, returned home with her son and the goods. [ 34 ] It is precisely in her apartment that were found many objects and pieces of equipment stolen on or around April 3, 2014 from the dek hockey locale. This substantially corroborates Chénard's version.

Jonathan Chénard's testimony directly implicates the accused, Mary Blanchette, in the thefts, thereby clearly demonstrating her knowledge of, if not her active participation in, the thefts. [ 35 ] For all these reasons, the accused is declared GUILTY of the charge brought against her in counts 2 and 4, and ACQUITTED of counts 1 and 3, given Crown counsel's declaration regarding those counts. __________________________________ Serge Champoux J.C.Q. Mtre. Karyne Goulet Counsel for the prosecutor Mtre. Danielle Dontigny Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: September 2, 2016