R. v. Plouffe, 2021 BCPC 124

Citation: R. v. Plouffe 2021 BCPC 124 Date: 20210315 File No: 72506-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. BRENDA LEE PLOUFFE ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE CROWN

SECTION 117.05 C.C.C. APPLICATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C. MALFAIR Counsel for the Crown: S. O'Connor, by teleconference Appearing on their own behalf: B. Plouffe Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 19 and 22, 2020, and February 4, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 15, 2021 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] THE COURT: These are my reasons for decision on the application. So this is an application by the Crown for an order pursuant to 117.05 of the Criminal Code for forfeiture of a .22 calibre rifle seized from Brenda Plouffe and prohibiting her from possessing any weapon, firearm, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, prohibited device, or explosive substance for five years.

[ 2 ] The issue is whether or not it is desirable in the interests of the safety of Ms. Plouffe, or any other person, that she should be prohibited from possessing a firearm and whether the circumstances warrant the granting of the order. [ 3 ]

Section 117.05 of the Code sets out the process and considerations in this application. 117.05(1) and 117.05(4) provide as follows: Where any thing or document has been seized under subsection 117.04(1) or (2), the justice who issued the warrant authorizing the seizure or, if no warrant was issued, a justice who might otherwise have issued a warrant, shall, on application for an order for the disposition of the thing or document so seized made by a peace officer within thirty days after the date of execution of the warrant or of the seizure without a warrant, as the case may be, fix a date for the hearing of the application and direct that notice of the hearing be given to such persons or in such manner as the justice may specify.

Sub (4) says: Where, following the hearing of an application made under subsection (1), the justice finds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person from whom the thing was seized or of any other person that the person should possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or any such thing, the justice shall (

a) order that any thing seized be forfeited to Her Majesty or be otherwise disposed of; and (

b) where the justice is satisfied that the circumstances warrant such an action, order that the possession by that person of any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, or of any such thing, be prohibited during any period, not exceeding five years, that is specified in the order, beginning on the making of the order. BACKGROUND [ 4 ] Brenda Plouffe is an elderly retired grandmother who lives with her husband at a lakefront property in Prince George, B.C.

For the last several years, she has been in a conflict with one of her neighbours, Daryl Desjarlais. [ 5 ] I accept Ms. Plouffe’s evidence, which was not challenged by the Crown, that Mr. Desjarlais and his spouse have subjected Ms. Plouffe to a campaign of intimidation over several years. Ms. Plouffe says Mr. Desjarlais has boasted about having run organized criminal enterprises, murdering people and disposing of their body with his spouse. He has suggested he is above the law, claiming he has given lawyers Rolex watches to “get off of charges” and that the “police are in his pocket.” Mr.

Desjarlais has posted pictures of himself holding a handgun on his Facebook page. When Mr. Desjarlais sees Ms. Plouffe outside on her property, he will charge the fence between their properties to scare her. Ms. Plouffe says Mr. Desjarlais has threatened to burn down her house, told her to “pack her bags,” and has said, “I hope you die soon.” He has thrown rocks at her dogs and her cars. He routinely refers to her in foul misogynist language. He once fired a high-powered rifle over her property. [ 6 ] It is not contested that Mr.

Desjarlais has criminal convictions for drug trafficking and illegal possession of firearms contrary to a firearms prohibition order. [ 7 ] The conflict with Mr. Desjarlais was fuelled, in part, by Mr. Desjarlais’ illicit tie-in to a municipal culvert which ended up flooding Ms. Plouffe’s property. Following her complaint to the relevant authorities, the culvert was ultimately removed, leading to an escalation of the conflict. I also accept Ms. Plouffe’s evidence that Mr. Desjarlais has expressed his desire to obtain her property. Mr. Desjarlais has asserted to Ms.

Plouffe that she will be “gone soon” and he will then build his own house on her property. [ 8 ] Whether her fears are justified or not, it is clear Ms. Plouffe feels Mr. Desjarlais and his partner are trying to run her off her property. There were numerous complaints made by Ms. Plouffe to the police since 2014 about Mr. Desjarlais and his spouse’s conduct. Ms. Plouffe says she has provided the police with videos and other evidence documenting what she feels is a campaign of intimidation by Mr. Desjarlais, but no action has been taken.

She started an action in Supreme Court, but abandoned her claim for relief, she says, because Mr. Desjarlais’ threats escalated after their first court appearance. Mr. Desjarlais and his partner renamed their Wi-Fi network, which is visible to Ms. Plouffe from her property when searching for a network, “better start packing.” [ 9 ] The strain of the ongoing conflict with Mr. Desjarlais has caused Ms. Plouffe to become increasing hostile, confrontational, and paranoid, not only with Mr. Desjarlais, but with many of the authorities she has reached out to who she feels are not protecting her.

She has called the police hundreds of times. She was often antagonistic towards police when they failed to take the kind of action she demanded. I accept Corporal Blom’s evidence that police did attempt to forward charges against Mr. Desjarlais to Crown counsel, but charges were not approved. [ 10 ] In frustration, Ms. Plouffe started sending reams of angry vulgar emails to her local MLA, Shirley Bond. The frequency and hostility of the emails started accelerating after November of 2018. A meeting was held between Ms.

Bond’s office, the police, and a representative of the Ministry of Transportation on March 27, 2019, in response to the increasingly concerning emails sent by Ms. Plouffe. Corporal Blom was given hundreds of pages of angry emails. Some of the emails sent between November 2018 and April 2019 were adduced in evidence. They can generously be described as abusive and derogatory. [ 11 ] In an email sent March 20, 2019, Ms. Plouffe wrote to Ms. Bond, “You want to know how scared Ralph is, he thinks I should just keep all the guns loaded." [ 12 ] In an email sent March 21, 2019, Ms.

Plouffe wrote in all caps that she and her husband were “SCARED FOR THEIR LIVES” and they were “ARMED AND WILL STAY ARMED”, until the government and RCMP stop the “SEVERE NON-STOP BULLYING.” [ 13 ] On March 28, 2019, Corporal. Blom attended Ms. Plouffe’s residence with a mental health nurse and an investigator from Serious Crimes in order to talk to her. Ms. Plouffe was hostile with police and ordered them off her property. Ms. Plouffe’s brother told her the police were not going to do anything for her and, “She needed to take things into her own hands.”

[ 14 ] On April 11, 2019, there was an incident where Mr. Desjarlais fired a weapon at Ms. Plouffe’s property. Specifically, Ms. Plouffe had erected a sign on her driveway stating, “Stop Bullying,” referring to her neighbour as a “convicted felon,” and complaining about the culvert. Someone shot out the sign with a pellet gun. Ms. Plouffe called the police who attended and spoke to Mr. Desjarlais. Mr. Desjarlais admitted shooting his pellet gun towards Ms. Plouffe’s property, but claimed he was only shooting at “squirrels on the fence”, and that he had “unintentionally” struck the sign.

The police took no further action, notwithstanding Mr. Desjarlais had admittedly fired a pellet gun recklessly and repeatedly at Ms. Plouffe’s driveway. [ 15 ] Ms. Plouffe complains that the officer promised to arrest Mr. Desjarlais if he had, in fact, shot her sign, but then resiled from that promise upon Mr. Desjarlais dubiously claiming he “accidentally” shot it. [ 16 ] Following this incident, Ms. Plouffe’s mental health clearly deteriorated to crisis mode. I accept she felt the police would not protect her from Mr. Desjarlais who she reasonably believed had intentionally fired at her property.

Her emails to Shirley Bond became more vitriolic and hateful. In rude terms, she complained about being bullied and harassed and the police’s inaction. [ 17 ] On April 11, 2019, following the shooting incident, Ms.

Plouffe sent an email to Shirley Bond stating in all caps: YEAH EVERYONE JUST SIT BACK AND LET US BE TERRORIZED AND INTIMIDATED OVER AND OVER BY THESE FUCKING BULLIES AND THIS FUCKING GOVERNMENT… SO WE WILL JUST STAY ARMED HERE, WE SUGGEST EVERYONE STAY AWAY THIS IS CLEARLY ESCALATING, NOW THEY ARE SHOOTING OUR PROPERTY, BECAUSE WERE NOT BEING RUN OFF AS THEY HAVE TRIED DOING REPEATEDLY HERE TO US, SO WHAT’S NEXT? THEY MURDER US?... [ 18 ] On April 12th, she sent the following, again, in caps: BIG FUCKING BRAVE MAN LIKE YOU DARYL WITH LITTLE PELLET GUN SHOOTING ON OUR PROPERTY, MAKES YA FEEL ALL BIG AND TOUGH?

YOU EVER NEED TO SEE REAL FUCKING GUNS LITTLE MAN LET US KNOW? YOUR LITTLE DICK SYNDROME IS SHOWING BUDDY, SO TUCK THAT LITTLE PECKER IN CONVICTED FELON CAUSE WERE NOT RUNNING AND HIDING ANYMORE, SO FUCK YOU BOTH NEXT DOOR, YOU COME ON OUR PROPERTY AGAIN, AND WE WILL TAKE THAT AS A THREAT ON OUR LIVES, AND ACT ACCORDINGLY TO PROTECT OURSELVES ANY MEANS WE CAN …fuck you Shirley Bond leaving us terrorized here, we fucking hate you. [ 19 ] On April 16, 2019, Ms. Plouffe sent Ms. Bond an email intimating she might fire her gun, promoting the police to obtain a search warrant to seize any firearms.

In that email, which subject line states, “Re: Shirley Bond is a lowlife government douche bag,” Ms. Plouffe writes: POLICE have not even spoke to these bullies about shooting pellet gun onto our property a few days ago doing damage to our property.

And again intimidating us, so Daryl and Jodi lets understand each other convicted felon, you have pellet gun CAUSE YOU’RE A FUCKING CONVICTED FELON CRIMINAL, you wanna play guns muther fucker, shoot again on our property, AND WE WILL RETURN THE GUN FIRE, and asshole were NOT convicted felons SO WE ALLOWED REAL NICE BIG GUNS… if police aren’t stopping YOU SHOOTING UP OUR PROPERTY, THEN WE WILL WE WILL BE RETURNING THE FAVOUR… we’re not having one law for you, and another for us, if you can shoot so shall we… YOU WILL NEVER MAKE US HIDE AGAIN, ONLY REASON WE HAVE GUNS IS BECAUSE OF RCMP NEVER STOPPING YOU HERE… [ 20 ] Police attended Ms.

Plouffe’s residence on May 10, 2019 and seized all firearms and ammunition. Only one firearm belongs to Ms. Plouffe, a pink .22 calibre rifle. All other firearms and ammunition belong to her husband. None of the firearms seized were loaded or unsafely stored. The Crown does not seek any forfeiture or firearms prohibition orders with respect to those items which belong to Ms. Plouffe’s husband. [ 21 ] Ms. Plouffe testified that she is terrified and lives in a state of fear over her neighbours and feels helpless and unprotected.

She lashed out at the police and Shirley Bond out of exasperation as a desperate cry for attention, but she is not a violent person and would never use a gun. She has no criminal record or negative police history. Ms. Plouffe says she would never use a gun against another person. If she felt threatened, she would use her fists, but would not even think to load a gun. She says, despite nine years of conflict, she has never fired a gun. She does not even hunt. She uses her gun to shoot at cans. Ms.

Plouffe denied she bought the gun for protection, colourfully opining that shooting an attacker with a .22 would just “piss them off,” not stop them. [ 22 ] Ms. Plouffe explained that the threat to “return fire” in her email to Shirley Bond only meant she would fire over Mr. Desjarlais’ property if he continued to fire at hers. She says she is now on antidepressants due to the ongoing stress of the conflict with Mr. Desjarlais. ANALYSIS [ 23 ] The Crown says it is not desirable in the interests of public safety that Ms.

Plouffe possess firearms because of her mental health issues coupled with statements she made in her emails to Shirley Bond. In support of its position, the Crown has adduced some authorities where the relief was granted in circumstances where the respondent was suicidal. Those cases are distinguishable to the extent that the basis for the order was a finding that it was not desirable in the interests of the safety from whom the firearm was seized that they possess firearms. In this case, there is no evidence of suicidal ideation. Rather, the Crown asserts Ms.

Plouffe’s possession of firearms is not desirable in the interests of the safety of another person. [ 24 ] The Crown has adduced R. v. King , 2018 ONCJ 190 , as a case where the court found an order was desirable in the interests of the safety of others. However, in that case, the mentally ill respondent had shot a police officer and was later found not criminally responsible. There is no suggestion Ms. Plouffe has ever used or pointed a gun at anyone. [ 25 ] The Crown suggests Ms.

Plouffe suffers from mental health issues as disclosed by her admission to taking antidepressants, but no medical evidence was adduced as to any diagnosis or the features of her mental illness, if any, which help inform the issues before the

court. I cannot take judicial notice that someone who takes antidepressants is more prone to violence or presumed not to be a responsible gun owner. [ 26 ] It is evident Ms. Plouffe’s main objection to the order is more grounded on principle than adverse effect. She feels a dangerous criminal has bullied, intimidated, and victimized her and her family, yet the authorities have done nothing other than target her. In her words, “They are making me out to be the criminal.” She looks to the court to dismiss the application as a vindication of her plight. [ 27 ] As stated above, the Crown has not challenged Ms.

Plouffe’s allegations of harassment and intimidation by Mr. Desjarlais. Mr. Desjarlais’ prior convictions lend some credibility to her claims and she has made hundreds of complaints to police. Mr. Desjarlais admitted to firing a pellet gun repeatedly in the direction of her property. Whether in doing so he only “accidentally” repeatedly struck a sign, which just so happened to be critical of him, is questionable. Ms. Plouffe’s feelings of being unprotected and left to fend for herself are not completely without foundation. [ 28 ] However, Ms. Plouffe’s interactions with authorities has not helped her situation.

The authorities did deal with Ms. Plouffe’s complaint about the culvert and it was moved, but she continued to agitate about it. Police have responded to many of the complaints Ms. Plouffe has made only to be met with hostility. Her rabid letters to Shirley Bond exceed all bounds of civil discourse. Ms. Plouffe must recognize it is challenging for authorities to understand her problems and respond effectively when she refuses to appropriately engage with them. [ 29 ] Ms. Plouffe obtained her PAL and obtained a firearm five years ago in the midst of this dispute with Mr. Desjarlais.

In a number of her emails, she claims to have obtained firearms in order to arm herself as a defence against Mr. Desjarlais. I do not believe her evidence that she would never consider using a gun in self-defence. Her emails to Ms. Bond say just the opposite. [ 30 ] The question then becomes whether it is desirable in the interests of public safety that Ms. Plouffe possess a firearm in circumstances when one of the reasons for her possession is to use a firearm as a means of self-defence against an individual who she, not unreasonably, believes intends to harm her. [ 31 ]

Section 117.05 is preventative in nature. It is also current in scope. The assessment requires the court to consider, as of today, if it is not desirable in the interests of public safety to another person that Ms. Plouffe possess firearms. The appropriate legal test is whether there are legitimate concerns she lacks the responsibility and discipline the law requires of gun owners ( R. v. Day , [2006] O.J. No. 3187 (Ont. S.C.) ). I do not need to find it is probable she will use a firearm to harm another person in order to be satisfied there are such legitimate concerns. [ 32 ] In R. v.

Douglas , 2013 ONCJ 649 , furnished by the Crown, the Ontario Provincial Court judge declined to make a firearms prohibition order in circumstances where, five years earlier, the respondent had been apprehended under the Mental Health Act . The respondent had exhibited significant stress, anger, and confessed to some suicidal ideation as a result of a number of recent events which had negatively impacted his life and admitted to having thoughts of hurting others. He was a “hothead” at work, but never threatening.

In dismissing the Crown’s application, the judge noted the age of the event giving rise to the application, as well as the fact that the respondent had no history of violence, no criminal record, no substance abuse issues, no diagnosed major mental illness. He only possessed legal long guns for legitimate hunting purposes which had been stored safely at his residence at the time of seizure.

The judge described the respondent’s behaviour was “at worst, reflecting immoderate language, ambiguous threats and worrying levels of anxiety and agitation.” [ 33 ] In R. v Piper , 2019 BCPC 70 , the respondent was eccentric, but had never made threats or acted with violence. The application was dismissed. [ 34 ] Had the only allegations before the court been Ms. Plouffe’s confrontation with her neighbour, hostility towards authority figures, and submission of rude, but non-threatening, emails to Shirley Bond, I would not have granted the order. I am also sympathetic to Ms.

Plouffe’s feelings of persecution and helplessness in the wake of the conflict with her neighbour ,and her desire to feel safe. The difficulty is that Ms. Plouffe went beyond expressions of frustration and bravado-esque posturing. She made repeated and specific references to having guns in circumstances where it can be reasonably inferred she possessed those guns to use as a defensive weapon against her neighbour. She used terms like being “armed” and “returning fire” and “acting accordingly” if he comes on her property. She boasted Mr.

Desjarlais only had pellet guns and that he should cease antagonizing her, because she has “real guns.” [ 35 ] In short, on numerous occasions, Ms. Plouffe linked her feelings of fear, anger, and desire to protect herself from Mr. Desjarlais with her possession of guns. There is a material risk that if Ms. Plouffe felt sufficiently threatened by Mr. Desjarlais, she may reach for a gun to defend herself, with disastrous consequences. As of the date of hearing, Ms.

Plouffe was still palpably angry and terrified and did not trust the police to protect her, such that the risk of acting on her fears with a gun has not abated with time. [ 36 ] I am sympathetic to Ms. Plouffe who genuinely feels afraid and powerless, but people in the sway of that emotional state can make impulsive, life-altering decisions, especially when they have access to weapons. In my view, it is not in the interests of safety of another person that Ms. Plouffe possess firearms at this moment. [ 37 ] Ms. Plouffe has not made threats of harm or contemplated use of firearms against anyone other than Mr.

Desjarlais. If the conflict with Mr. Desjarlais subsides, the prohibition order is no longer warranted. As such, I do not feel it is necessary to impose a general five-year prohibition as proposed by the Crown. Rather, I find a one year order is appropriate, after which time, the situation can be reviewed and a determination can be made if an ongoing prohibition or future prohibition is justified. [ 38 ] There will be an order pursuant to s. 117.05(4) prohibiting Ms. Plouffe from possessing firearms for a period of one year from today.

Her .22 calibre rifle may be transferred to her husband provided he has a valid licence to possess firearms. If he fails to take possession of the firearm from the RCMP within 90 days, then the rifle shall be forfeited to the Crown. [ 39 ] So, Ms. Plouffe, I am placing you on an order pursuant to s. 117.05 of the Criminal Code for a period of one year. So for a period of one year, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted or prohibited weapon, prohibited device,

ammunition, or explosive substance. [ 40 ] Then transfer of firearms, within 90 days of the entry of this order, the firearms, crossbow, restricted weapons, and/or ammunition may be collected by an individual or business who/which possesses the necessary licences, authorizations, registration certificates, and who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing the items and to whom you have transferred legal ownership of the firearms, crossbows, restricted weapons, and ammunition to individuals or businesses.

If no one, including any legal transferees of the items, takes possession of the items within 90 days of the entry of this order, the items are forfeited to Her Majesty. [ 41 ] So Ms. Plouffe, you may not possess firearms for one year, okay, but your husband can pick up your firearm because he is still -- provided he is still entitled and lawfully entitled to possess firearms. [ 42 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: Well, they took his PAL. The police took his PAL. [ 43 ] THE COURT: If he is lawfully entitled to possess them, then they may be picked up. [ 44 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: How do we do that?

Just go get them? [ 45 ] THE COURT: I cannot advise you with respect to that. I have not placed him on any orders. I have not prohibited him from possessing any licences. Just you. [ 46 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: They took all his guns. Two years ago. [ 47 ] THE COURT: Ms. O'Connor, is that correct? [ 48 ] CNSL S. O'CONNOR: Your Honour, I cannot hear Ms. Plouffe. [ 49 ] THE COURT: Ms. Plouffe is saying the police took Mr. -- her husband's -- who is not a subject -- [ 50 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: All guns. [ 51 ] THE COURT: -- of the application, that they took his firearms and PAL.

Is he the subject of an application? [ 52 ] CNSL S. O'CONNOR: No, he is not, but I understand that they did do that. They took all the weapons from the house. [ 53 ] THE COURT: All right. Is there any reason he cannot go get them? [ 54 ] CNSL S. O'CONNOR: There is no reason at all now, Your Honour. I do not think there is any issues with him and they did not put an application in with him at all. [ 55 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 56 ] CNSL S. O'CONNOR: Yes. [ 57 ] RALPH PLOUFFE: Do we need a paper or just go there? [ 58 ] THE COURT: You should be able to go there and go collect them.

I do not -- there is no process before the court which would prohibit you from possessing any firearms. [ 59 ] RALPH PLOUFFE: Okay, thank you. [ 60 ] THE COURT: All right. Okay, thank you very much. So it will just be for one year, Ms. Plouffe. [ 61 ] Anything further from you, Ms. O'Connor, from the Crown's perspective? [ 62 ] CNSL S. O'CONNOR: No, nothing, Your Honour.

Thank you very much. [ 63 ] THE COURT: All right, thank you. [ 64 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: Thank you for recognizing quite a bit of stuff that has happened. [ 65 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 66 ] BRENDA PLOUFFE: Thank you. [ 67 ] RALPH PLOUFFE: Thank you. (REASONS CONCLUDED)