R. v. Torgerson, 2022 BCPC 307

Citation: R. v. Torgerson 2022 BCPC 307 Date: 20220718 File Nos: 264580-1, 264582-1, 264891-1 Registry: Vancouver File No: 69450-1 Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA File No: 264580-1, 69450-1 REGINA v. JULIA MARIE MABLE TORGERSON File No: 264582-1 REGINA v. HANNA MILLER CAMPBELL, OLIVIA MARY HOWE JULIA MARIE MABLE TORGERSON File No: 264891-1 REGINA v. IVANNA MILLY CIKES JULIA MARIE MABLE TORGERSON ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE (Re Accused Torgerson) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE E. GORDON Counsel for the Crown: E. Leno Counsel for the Defendant: N. Wright Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.

Date of Judgment: July 18, 2022 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Julia Torgerson is before the Court for sentencing on six separate charges, all of which she has entered guilty pleas to: a charge of Mischief on January 17, 2022 in Vancouver; a charge of Mischief on January 20, 2022 in Vancouver; charges of Mischief and Violating a Release Order on January 26, 2022 in West Vancouver; and, finally, charges of Mischief and Violating a Release Order in Vancouver on January 31, 2022. [ 2 ] What occurred is that Ms.

Torgerson aligned herself with a group which is an offshoot of an organization known as Extension Rebellion; the name of the offshoot organization is Save Old Growth.

The stated goal of the organization pretty well comes from its name, which is to save the old-growth trees in the forests of British Columbia, but essentially to prevent what members of the group view as the deforestation of British Columbia, and therefore the significant harm to the world environment and the Planet. [ 3 ] Commencing in January of 2022, the group began blocking the Trans-Canada Highway at various points as a means of demanding, or hoping, that the British Columbia Government would enact legislation to ban all old-growth logging.

Apparently, the group indicated on forms of social media that they intended to block Highway 1 regularly until such time as their demands were met. [ 4 ] On the occasions when Ms. Torgerson was involved, commencing on January 17, the blockade was essentially where the highway enters Vancouver at the exit onto First Avenue, and traffic was blocked both exiting from the highway and attempting to enter the highway.

On the next occasion, January 20 of 2022, the blockade was again exiting from Highway 1, this time at the Hastings Street exit, and the parties, or the blockaders, sat in pedestrian crosswalks, essentially prohibiting traffic from going either way.

The next occasion, January 26, was at the Horseshoe Bay exit from the highway; and the final incident was five days later, on January 31, where the protestors sat on the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge itself, preventing traffic from completely altogether going south from the North Shore, and slowing traffic going north because people, of course, stopped to watch. [ 5 ] Ms. Torgerson has entered guilty pleas, and of course acknowledges that the manner in which the group protested was criminal because it impeded the traffic in such a way as to be a mischief.

It is significant, and the offences are significant for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, emergency vehicles are prevented from going where they have to go, and buildings could burn down, individuals could die. Second, traffic is completely blocked. Many of the individuals who were driving are individuals who are employees of businesses and they are required to be at work at a certain time.

Those individuals' employment was put in jeopardy. [ 6 ] Finally, perhaps not finally but significantly, whomever planned these protests certainly was not actually thinking about the environment, because causing thousands of automobiles to sit and idle on the highway is causing significant amount of fumes to go into the air, and significantly damage the environment, and contribute to climate change. [ 7 ] So whomever the organizers are, they certainly did not address their minds to the ramifications of their behaviour, not only on individuals, not only on potential deaths, but more importantly, if they are interested in the climate, in the climate itself. [ 8 ] Ms.

Torgerson comes before the court a 24-year-old woman. She has no criminal record. Crown counsel seeks a sentence of 14 days in custody for all of the offences, less time served, which would in this case be credit for three days. Defence counsel seeks a conditional discharge. [ 9 ] Crown counsel seeks a term of imprisonment for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, as some of my colleagues have observed, when at the start of various protests discharges were imposed as sentences to individuals, those discharges did not have any generally deterring effect, and Crown counsel suggests, and Courts have agreed with that position, that it is time at this point to consider incarcerating individuals as a means of letting those who would wish to commit crimes this way rethink their activities. [ 10 ] I have been provided with a number of authorities. Significantly, a recent decision of my sister Judge Burgess in R. v.

Panganiban , and others, (8 December 2021) Vancouver 262312 (BCPC). Another significant case put before the court is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in MacMillan Bloedel Limited v. Brown , (1994) 88 C.C.C. (3d) at p. 148, reasons for judgment of the court by Chief Justice McEachern, who said, among other things: "What is very much at issue and before this court is the future survival of the rule of law. It is the rule of law which distinguishes civilized society from anarchy.

Everything which we have today, and which we cherish in this free and democratic state, we have because of the rule of law." [ 11 ] The Court distinguished lawful protest and civil disobedience from criminality.

There are many ways that individuals or groups are free to protest in a manner that brings very much to the forefront of public attention the damage that is being sought to be addressed, in this case climate change, but in other cases, as some of the cases before the court have indicated, famous protestors were, of course, Mahatma Gandhi, the Reverend Martin Luther King, and of course Nelson Mandela, who was jailed, but he was not jailed for protesting, he was jailed because he brought loaded firearms to a protest.

I am not defending his having been jailed, I am just pointing out that in his case the protest may have been lawful, it was the firearms that were unlawful. But of course, he is the most famous protestor, and his decades in prison are what ended apartheid in South Africa. But there are ways of protesting to meet an objective, and there are ways of protesting that are criminal in consequence. [ 12 ] The method of protesting in this case, as far as this Court can see, did not assist the goal of the group, Save Old Growth.

Not only, as I indicated, did it in its impact negatively impact the climate, but what it did was it brought negative attention to the group, and no empathy to the group. All of those drivers who were prohibited from moving from wherever they wished to move because the protestors were there would not empathize with the group, in fact, they would hate the group. So the methodology must be reconsidered.

[ 13 ] Having said that, the issue that I have to consider in this case is whether general deterrence requires a period of incarceration, or whether general deterrence can be met, as defence counsel submits, through the imposition of a conditional discharge, which has such strict conditions on it that anyone who was aware of it would be deterred from acting in the manner that Ms.

Torgerson acted. [ 14 ] General deterrence is of course, if I may say, in this case the primary principle of sentencing because it must let others know that while proper protesting is never discouraged, protesting that becomes criminal must be prevented. [ 15 ] Ms. Torgerson is 24 years of age, and if I may say this, was raised from birth to be a compassionate individual. She was born in Calgary. Both of her parents were missionaries.

When she was nine years of age, her parents took her to Rwanda to work with children in an orphanage, who were orphaned as a result of the civil war in Rwanda. [ 16 ] They went back to Calgary for a period of time, and then took her to Thailand, where they worked with victims of human trafficking, who sometimes themselves were jailed with the traffickers. [ 17 ] Her entire life was one where, as a young child, she was taught to have compassion for others, and to look outside of herself. [ 18 ] She returned to Canada for high school, graduated high school in Calgary, worked in retail for a period of time, moved to Vancouver, and took a music management course, as I understand it. [ 19 ] Her parents run a business, Nanny McCluckins, where children are given eggs to assist hatching, then young chickens are born, and to raise the chickens so that the children are taught, among other things, compassion, the cycle of life, and how to look outside of themselves and look after others, which is pretty much the entire lesson that Ms.

Torgerson was given throughout her life. [ 20 ] Her parents at this point in time are moving to Texas for work, and her older sister, who apparently works in the oil and gas industry, is also moving to Texas for work. Her lawyer submits that were I to impose the sentence sought by the Crown she may very well be prevented from visiting her family because of the American policies of not letting anyone with a criminal record in Canada into the United States. [ 21 ] My sister Judge Burgess in Panganiban was very concerned about how the accused before her reacted to the charges.

There are many cases before the courts where people say they are sorry, and people can be sorry for two things: one is sorry that they committed the offence, and the second is sorry that they were caught. The individual, Panganiban, was sorry that they were caught, and was not at all reflective of the offences that that person had committed. [ 22 ] Ms. Torgerson, on the other hand, spoke to the Court and apologized to everyone, including the drivers, the police, and most importantly to the prosecutor, who she obviously has seen in court every time she has appeared.

There was no doubt in my mind that the contrition that I heard and observed was genuine, heartfelt, and deep. [ 23 ] More significantly, this group has protested most recently in June of this year, but Ms. Torgerson had indicated her intention to enter guilty pleas to the charges, and had arranged today's sentencing hearing in advance of that protest, and she did not take

part in it. [ 24 ] While the media has branded her the spokesperson for Save Old Growth, what she has indicated is that while she spoke to the media while she was protesting, and they obviously felt that she was the contact person, she had no official title. [ 25 ] Her counsel has, quite ingeniously, described her speaking to the media as showing her growth towards the contrition, because while she is prepared to always speak to the media about the dangers of deforestation, she was no longer prepared, after her one night in custody, to take

part in protests, and his submission is that that exemplifies what the Court needs to consider in considering whether there is genuine remorse, and whether the individual before the court needs to be branded with a criminal record. [ 26 ] I will say, this Court often sees, in legal matters, lawyers who like to speak to the media, interviewed on cases that are not their own, when those lawyers are not the chair people of the criminal justice subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, or a member of the Board of the Legal Aid Lawyer's Association, so it does not surprise me that someone determined that Ms.

Torgerson was the spokesperson and kept contacting her. [ 27 ] It is apparent from the comments that she made to the media, and it is apparent from the manner in which she addressed this Court, that for her very young age she is a remarkable confident and well-spoken young woman. [ 28 ] I have received four letters of reference that speak volumes about her. [ 29 ] Two of my colleagues, Judge Harris and Judge Bakan, have distinguished cases where they saw genuine remorse from the decision of Judge Burgess where there was apparently no remorse, and both of them felt that in those circumstances the court could consider the discharge provisions of the Criminal Code . [ 30 ] I am satisfied that Ms.

Torgerson is genuinely remorseful. I am satisfied that her night in custody on January 31 st was specifically deterring, and I am satisfied that conditions of a conditional discharge, which would be sufficiently harsh to bring to anyone's attention that were they to protest beyond appropriate civil protest into the criminal sphere no one would want that sort of sentence. So I am satisfied that appropriate conditions can be crafted to meet the public interest in such a way that Ms. Torgerson does not need to receive a criminal record. [ 31 ] Can you stand up, please?

When you work at the bar on Granville, The Commodore, what are your hours? [ 32 ] THE ACCUSED: Usually I start around 6:30 or 7:30 p.m. and go anywhere from midnight to 3:00 a.m. [ 33 ] THE COURT: All right, and what days of the week?

[ 34 ] THE ACCUSED: It varies every week, it could be one day a week, five days a week, it just depends on how many shifts. [ 35 ] THE COURT: Are you able to tell them I am available only on certain days? [ 36 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [ 37 ] THE COURT: All right. So I am going to give you an 18-month conditional discharge, which means as long as you comply with the terms I am telling you, at the end of the 18 months the discharge becomes absolute and no formal conviction is entered against you.

If you do not comply, however, you will be charged with breach of probation and have to come back to court. [ 38 ] Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 39 ] Report to probation services no later than three o'clock p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, July 19, 2022, and thereafter as and when directed for the purpose of completing community service work. [ 40 ] You are to complete 100 hours of community service work to the satisfaction of the probation officer, and the community service work supervisor, no later than January 31, 2023. [ 41 ] For the first six months of the order, you have a curfew Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday evenings from six o'clock p.m. until six o'clock a.m.

On those days you will be permitted outside of your residence during curfew hours only if you have the prior written permission of your probation officer, or there is a medical emergency, in which case you would have to notify the police in advance of leaving your residence which hospital you are enroute to. [ 42 ] You do not have a curfew Thursday, Friday, and Saturday if you are working The Commodore on those days.

If you are not working The Commodore, for whatever reason you are not required, you will be required to be inside your residence. [ 43 ] Do you understand that? [ 44 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 45 ] THE COURT: All right. I just want to see what the wording -- sorry, as much as I said I like my own wording, Ms. Leno, I need your help with respect to the prohibition from protesting, how you want that worded. [ 46 ] CNSL E.

LENO: Yeah, it is in paragraph 5 of the Crown's submissions, or I can just read it out. [ 47 ] THE COURT: No, no, I have paragraph 5, thank you. [ 48 ] You may not block or impede traffic or pedestrians on any road or highway or public space in British Columbia. [ 49 ] Okay, Ms. Leno, any other conditions I ought to have addressed my mind to and neglected to? Oh, sorry, I thought of one other thing, but . . . [ 50 ] CNSL E. LENO: Judge Harris had Ms.

Campbell to carry a copy of the conditions on her, if we're trying to mirror that type of thing. [ 51 ] THE COURT: Well, I think that it is easy enough to search the database, but no, I want to ask you this question: I would order a surcharge, and I want you to be honest with me, if I order the surcharge is it going to be Crown funded or are you going to pay it yourself? [ 52 ] THE ACCUSED: I would pay it myself, actually. [ 53 ] THE COURT: All right. There will be a surcharge of $500.

How long will it take you to pay that? [ 54 ] THE ACCUSED: I could pay this week. [ 55 ] THE COURT: Well, I will give you until August 31 to pay. [ 56 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. [ 57 ] THE COURT: All right. Now, do you understand all the conditions? [ 58 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 59 ] THE COURT: And you understand what happens if you violate the conditions? [ 60 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 61 ] THE COURT: Okay.

So I am satisfied that she understands, Madam Registrar, so she does not have to sign the order, but you have to wait on the second floor -- oh, you have to sign the time to pay form anyway, you might as well sign it. A justice of the peace will go over it with you. [ 62 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. [ 63 ] THE COURT: Wear your mask when you are meeting with him or her, sign it, and then you are free to leave the building. [ 64 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay.

[ 65 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 66 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you so much. [ 67 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 68 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you. [ 69 ] CNSL E. LENO: Thank you. (REASONS CONCLUDED)