2014 QCCQ 11919, 2014 QCCQ 11919

Unofficial English Translation R. c. Fréchette 2014 QCCQ 11919 JF 0929 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LOCALITY OF DRUMMOND DRUMMONDVILLE "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 405-01-028815-123 DATE: December 8, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ THE HONOURABLE HÉLÈNE FABI, J.C.Q., PRESIDING ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v. GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE

(001) GINETTE DUCLOS

(002) GÉRALD FONTAINE

(003) Co-accused ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Gabrielle Fréchette, Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine are jointly charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Julie Théberge, and criminal negligence causing the death of Chantal Lavigne, which occurred in Durham-Sud on July 29, 2011. [ 2 ] The facts charged occurred during a fourteen-day "Rebirthing seminar" that had nine participants, including the victims Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne.

Gabrielle Fréchette organized this personal growth and fulfilment activity and was the spiritual leader, while Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine helped, each in their specific ways. [ 3 ] It was toward the end of this "seminar", during a "sweat lodge" session lasting several hours that Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne were urgently taken to hospital by ambulance. Julie Théberge sustained bodily harm while Chantal Lavigne died of her injuries.

ISSUES [ 4 ] Was the conduct of the co-accused negligent, demonstrating "wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of other persons" thereby representing [ translation ] "a marked departure from the standard of conduct of a reasonably prudent person placed in the same circumstances"? [ 5 ] If so, did the negligent act or acts contribute significantly to Julie Théberge's bodily harm and Chantal Lavigne's death? ADMISSIONS [ 6 ] At trial, the parties made some admissions, which are listed in exhibit P-1.

CONTEXT [ 7 ] The prosecution called thirteen witnesses to testify, including five police officers who all worked for the Sûreté du Québec in Trois- Rivières at the time: Jean-François Baril and Michel Hamel (investigators), Guillaume Bazin and Maxime Leblanc (detective sergeants),

and Officer Pascal Bernier (crime scene technician). [ 8 ] Chantal Lavigne's husband, Patrick Nault, also testified, as did Julie Théberge and Louise Pelletier, who took

part in the sweat held on July 28 and 29, 2011. Three ambulance attendants, Jean Dumont, Nicolas Prévost Drouin, and Jean-Philippe Guay testified as to the circumstances surrounding their involvement at the scene. Dr Daniel Lafleur, general practitioner at the Sainte-Croix Hospital in Drummondville, took charge of the two victims, and Dr André Bourgault, a forensic pathologist with the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale (LSJML) in Montreal, performed the autopsy on Chantal Lavigne's body. [ 9 ] For the defence, the co-accused Gabrielle Fréchette testified. She also called Claudette Goulet, one of the nine who took

part in the sweat on July 28 and 29, 2011, to testify. The co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine also testified in their own defence. [ 10 ] The facts related by the various witnesses basically concur, save a few aspects that will be subject to judicial determination.

For greater ease of comprehension, the Court will consider the evidence respecting the unfolding of the [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar and the involvement of each of the co-accused at those times in three stages. 1st stage: The training sessions [ 11 ] The [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar took place in a large two-storey country house located at 253 Range 10, in Durham-Sud.

This location is remote and removed from the road. [ 12 ] During the events that took place in July of 2011, the said house was rented by Gabrielle Fréchette's daughter, Manon Labranche (nicknamed Mawi), who also organizes and leads this type of activity. She welcomes and houses participants there. She allowed her mother to use the house for the period scheduled for the "seminar" so that the activity could take place. [ 13 ] Gabrielle Fréchette therefore did not have to incur any inherent costs to use this location. [ 14 ] The cost of the activity per participant was $1,500, not including accommodation or meals.

The participants were not asked to fill out any questionnaires or forms regarding their health, nor did the co-accused ask any questions on the subject during the "seminar" held in July of 2011. [ 15 ] Gabrielle Fréchette was the organizer and mastermind behind this fourteen-day "seminar". For the purposes of the course, she asked that people call her "Séréna". She claims to be a medium who can channel an entity made of energy that she calls Melkisédeck.

When this happens, her voice is different. [ 16 ] From the first day of the "seminar" to the day before the sweat, she gave various workshops on themes related to personal growth. Each workshop was followed by a discussion forum between the participants and the co-accused, with everyone sharing their life experiences through drawings in particular. [ 17 ] A typical day during the "seminar" consisted of two workshops on a variety of subjects, each lasting about thirty minutes; one was held in the morning and the other in the afternoon.

There was free time in the evening. [ 18 ] There were nine participants, two men and seven women, of varying ages.

The group included: ➢ Claudette Goulet, 60 years old, nicknamed Daïva ➢ Louise Pelletier, 70 years old, mother of the co-accused Gérald Fontaine ➢ Julie Théberge, 48 years old ➢ Chantal Lavigne, 35 years old ➢ Viviane Boulair, originally from France, nicknamed Yaëlle ➢ and two couples also from France (Georges Rafin and Françoise Riu, Jean Rapahel Carminati and Paule Zerbid) [ 19 ] Everyone had a room in the house to sleep in, with most of them sharing two to a room. [ 20 ] So it was with Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne, who shared a room with two single beds on the second floor.

They had met in 2008 during a training session offered by Gabrielle Fréchette and had formed a friendship. They became true devotees of the teachings of Gabrielle Fréchette and trusted her completely. [ 21 ] As for the co-accused, they did not sleep in this house but travelled to and from their respective homes. [ 22 ] Ginette Duclos collaborated with, assisted, and accompanied Gabrielle Fréchette during the workshops that were given. She trained for one year to be a [ translation ] "rebirthing coach" and passed on her knowledge to the participants.

According to her description of this technique, it basically consists in: [ translation ] "breathing from the upper chest, which brings about a decrystallization, it leads the mind to let go and allows the cells to breathe... it brings great mental freedom, it increases self-awareness... a technique that sets the person free from tensions, memories, stress, suffering, anxiety... it is noisy and might be disturbing to those who hear it. [1] [ 23 ] In 2004, Ginette Duclos had initially intended to register and pay the fees for some of the seminars offered by Gabrielle Fréchette.

Gabrielle Fréchette, however, agreed not to charge her the registration fee in exchange for her services as a [ translation ]

"rebirthing coach". That is how Ginette Duclos came to work for Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 24 ] During the training sessions where Gabrielle Fréchette acted as a medium and entered a trance state, Ginette Duclos described her role essentially as: [ translation ] I am the [ translation ] "left pillar". I am to Gabrielle's left, especially when she is channelling, when she is in the state she referred to yesterday, contacting the entity, the energy of Melkisédeck, and as [ translation ] "left pillar", well I support the [ translation ] "trance director" who is on her right. That's Gérald Fontaine.

My energy is more to ground Gérald, who grounds Gabrielle. We form a whole; we blend so that the energy is correctly positioned. [2] [ 25 ] Gérald Fontaine explained that during the training sessions, his duties consisted in organizing the space for the various activities and contributing to the teachings by sharing his life experiences with the group. [ 26 ] In 2009, at Gabrielle Fréchette's request, he started acting as [ translation ] "trance director" whenever she gave workshops.

He defines [ translation ] "trance director" as follows: [ translation ] His primary duty is mainly to ground, to tend to the environment during a trance. His main action is to ensure that all is well with the participants in the room, by which I mean the state of the participants and to ensure that the medium is protected from negative energies during the trance. Through my actions, to properly ground the medium, energetically speaking, and myself.

I am always seated to the right of the medium, Gabrielle Fréchette. [3] 2nd stage: Meeting held on July 27, 2011, in preparation for the sweat held on July 28 that ended the night of July 29, 2011 [ 27 ] This preparatory meeting took place on July 27, 2011, at 4:30 p.m. in a large room on the second floor of the house in Durham- Sud. [ 28 ] The co-accused were present for this meeting, which was called by Gabrielle Fréchette (Séréna) for the very specific purpose of giving the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine the instructions and guidelines that they would need to follow during the sweat scheduled for the next day, on July 28, 2011, as part of the teachings given during the [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar.

It appears that Gabrielle Fréchette herself used a tape-recorder to record this meeting, which lasted about sixteen minutes. [ 29 ] The recording reveals that Gabrielle Fréchette used a different voice, one that is, according to the co-accused, the voice of the entity Melkisédeck who communicates through Gabrielle Fréchette when she is in a trance state. [ 30 ] The prosecution filed this audio recording as exhibit P-7b and the written transcript as exhibit P-26. [ 31 ] Here are a few excerpts of the instructions given by Gabrielle Fréchette, who, lest we forget, was inhabited at that moment by the entity Melkisédeck according to the co-accused.

Gérald Fontaine can be heard asking Gabrielle Fréchette questions: [ translation ] GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE: - So, at 3:30 p.m., of the coming day, everything is set up, the naked bodies are covered with this mud up to the neck, each in turn, one by one. Once the person is lying down, you will wrap them so that the humidity remains. It is possible that there may be (unclear) the plastic, a thin sheet between the body and the plastic. The plastic will nonetheless maintain the humidity. But as the session will be extended, to avoid wounds on the body , a very thin small sheet.

Not a blanket, a small sheet. - So, mummify the person in this earth. There is earth on the body, you mummify it with the blanket and re-mummify... with plastic. Then a first blanket up to the neck. - Plan for very loud background music , the kind that raises the spirit, not the soul. - Once settled in, others may come in and so on. When everyone is settled in, you will go with Séréna. - We are planning on approximately 12 to 14 hours, 10 to 14 hours, nothing is entirely decided. - Therefore, plan to have snacks nearby, water in sufficient quantities as well.

For them, nothing at all. - Nothing is de-ci-ded. - There will certainly be some aspects that will be more shamanic, perhaps breathing phases, silent phases, guided phases. There will be a little of everything. But they will not move from where they lie . Sweat phases, and phases where the blankets may be removed. Then, they will know that they have succeeded. One hour later, put the blankets back on. - You will be the ones to apply the mud. - You will wrap the small sheet. - You will be the ones to wrap the plastic for the humidity.

- And you will be the ones to lay the first blanket directly on the body. And the preparations for the head will also serve the purpose of preventing them from focusing on the others and comparing themselves. They will be confined . - Are we clear now? - GÉRALD FONTAINE interjects to say: - So, they are wrapped, we wait about fifteen minutes and we then start the process with you. Whatever happens ? - GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE: - So tomorrow, at 3:30 p.m., so that the first participant may be welcomed and wrapped in mud. May they rejoice and celebrate their existence during this waiting period.

Very excellent. - GÉRALD FONTAINE interjects : - One last quick question: Will there be unification prior to that particular passage, would it be...? - GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE responds : - Nothing at all. No instructions. Do not say anything.

Do not answer any questions . [4] (See exhibit P-7b, audio from July 27, 2011, and exhibit P-26, written transcript of this audio from July 27, 2011). 3rd stage: The sweat held on July 28-29, 2011 [ 32 ] The night before the sweat, following the preparatory meeting of the co-accused, the participants were invited to prepare their blankets, duvets for the most part, which they had brought at Gabrielle Fréchette's request for the purpose of the sweat that would be held as part of the "seminar". They were asked to leave them in the second floor bathroom.

Although they were free to decide whether or not to join the sweat, all the participants elected to go. They were told to present themselves at 3:30 p.m. on July 28, 2011, at the door to the large room on the second floor. [ 33 ] This room, which is about twenty square meters, has a sloped ceiling that follows the roof line and the outside structure. There are three windows on three different walls over which black silk material is hung, as appears from exhibit P-3, photographs No. 95 to 99.

The floors are hardwood. [ 34 ] This house does not have any air conditioning. [ 35 ] On July 28, 2011, in Durham-Sud, the outside temperature was very hot and the humidity index high (see exhibit P-2 from the daily data reports of nearby cities). In fact, in the free and voluntary written statement Gérald Fontaine gave to police officers on August 9, 2011, there was an admission. He stated that he estimated the temperature in the room where the sweat was held to be between 30 and 34 degrees Celsius.

The crime scene technician, Officer Pascal Bernier, reported sweltering heat when he arrived on the scene after the events, around 12:25 p.m. on July 29, 2011, to take photographs for the investigation. He later told the Court: [ translation ] It was hot, I remember, I was only taking photos. I was wearing a t-shirt and pants and I was sweating freely. It was hot and humid, uncomfortable... it was really hot, suffocatingly so. [5] [ 36 ] On the morning of July 28, 2011, there was no workshop. All the participants had free time.

At 3:30 p.m., they all went to the second floor and stood outside the door to the large room, knowing that a sweat would be held there. The participants did not know, however, how the sweat would unfold, the methods that would be used, or how long it would last. The purpose of this exercise was to purify the body, which would close the [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar. According to Julie Théberge and Louise Pelletier, they were not given any preliminary guidelines by the co-accused the evening before or the day of the sweat.

They are categorical on this point. [ 37 ] In response to the questions asked under cross-examination about whether or not the participants could drink or eat during the sweat, Gabrielle Fréchette declared essentially the following: [ translation ] From the moment they entered the room, no, they did not eat or drink... however, if they interjected and said that they needed to drink, I need to, we would invite them to exit to go do what it was they needed to do... it was not prohibited, but there was no water there .

If they needed to drink, they told us and they went out. [6] [ 38 ] Gabrielle Fréchette also testified that all the participants were entirely aware that should they decide to exit the room, they would not be coming back in. She added that during this sweat, none of the participants ate or drank. [ 39 ] Later, referring to the food and drink, she said: [ translation ] In the room, I do not remember prohibiting anything, but it is true that they did not bring anything with them.

I never said: Do not bring anything, but nobody brought anything. [7] [ 40 ] On this subject, in his free and voluntary written statement given to police officers on August 9, 2011, Gérald Fontaine clearly

stated the exact opposite and said that the participants were not allowed to drink or eat. He told the Court: [ translation ] That is the underlying principle of sweat lodges, and people know that when there is a lodge. [8] [ 41 ] The participants presented themselves naked, covered in the white sheet that had been given to them just before. They were not asked any questions about their physical health or given any particular instructions by the co-accused. They entered the room one by one and welcomed by Gabrielle Fréchette, who purified them with sage.

Each participant then moved toward Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine and removed their sheet to have their body covered with a thin layer of damp earth, from their neck down to their toes. Gabrielle Fréchette had purchased the earth at Rona, and Gérald Fontaine had mixed it with water. [ 42 ] Each participant was then asked to lie down on their backs on the thin mattress (one and a half inches thick) assigned to them.

There was already a duvet on the mattress, over which there was a plastic tarp measuring 9 by 12 feet (see exhibit P-3, photograph No. 152), and then the white sheet worn by each of them. [ 43 ] Once every participant was lying down, Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine wrapped them from their necks to their feet, first in the white sheet, which went directly against the body, folding one side over the other, then the plastic tarp, and finally the duvet. [ 44 ] Julie Théberge, Louise Pelletier, and Claudette Goulet claimed that they had enough room to move and could have unwrapped themselves at any time had they wanted to. [ 45 ] According to Gabrielle Fréchette: [ translation ] The purpose of the sheet is to prevent the plastic from touching and coming into contact with the skin, and the purpose of the plastic is to attempt to maintain the humidity of the mud for as long as possible, so that it does not dry out too much. [9] [ 46 ] Gérald Fontaine, for his part, stated: [ translation ] ... the sheet was to prevent the plastic from sticking to the skin, ultimately, and the plastic was to prevent the earth from drying out completely, and it was also to prevent the sheets from getting too dirty and all that. [10] [ 47 ] Once all the participants were wrapped, Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine covered their bodies with the first duvet-type blanket, covering them from shoulder to foot.

They also placed cardboard boxes over the heads of all nine participants, empty beer boxes mostly, on the front of which an arch had been cut out to allow the face to be uncovered. [ 48 ] The idea of placing a cardboard box over the head was the result of an earlier conversation between the co-accused.

They had agreed that the box was the most effective way of preventing the blankets, which would be spread over the whole body, from touching the face. [ 49 ] In her examination in chief, Gabrielle Fréchette said: [ translation ] It was Gérald who ingeniously cut out the boxes that way. [11] [ 50 ] Under cross-examination, she also said the following about the use of the cardboard box: [ translation ] Depending on what I have at my disposal where I am, well I make due with what I have. [12] [ 51 ] Once the cardboard box was in place, and after the first [ translation ] "guidance" given the participants by Gabrielle Fréchette, Ginette Duclos spread a second duvet over each body and over the cardboard box in question so that their head was covered as well.

Finally, a third duvet-type blanket was also spread over the participants, some hiding the box entirely, while others only partially. [ 52 ] Gabrielle Fréchette had this to say about the third blanket during her cross-examination: [ translation ] We place the blanket depending on the two first blankets. If there is space between the two blankets, I spread the first, the second, and then I see that there is an air hole, and well, I'll spread the blanket to cover that air hole , that's all. [13] [ 53 ] She added: [ translation ] There is nothing showing, we cannot see any part of the body.

Even the box is not visible because it is under the blanket. [14] [ 54 ] With respect to the blankets covering the entire body of each participant, Louise Pelletier, the mother of the co-accused Gérald Fontaine, told the Court what she felt when they were spread over her body. She declared:

[ translation ] Gérald and Ginette spread three or four blankets... over our entire body and over the boxes. At that moment, I thought to myself: Geez, are we going to asphyxiate ourselves!

And then I felt a breeze of fresh air and I said to myself: "let it go", after all there is somebody to take care of you. [15] [ 55 ] Louise Pelletier added that prior to July 28, 2011, she had already participated in four or five sweats, one led by Gabrielle Fréchette, during which she sat on the floor covered in blankets for at most one and a half hours. [ 56 ] On July 28, 2011, there were six participants lying along the wall to the left of the door inside the room. At the far end lay Jean-Raphael Carminati, then Julie Théberge, Chantal Lavigne, Louise Pelletier, Viviane Boulair and Françoise Riu.

A large crank- handle window was half open on the left side (see exhibit P-3, photograph No.196). [ 57 ] On the other side, to the right, Georges Rafin, Claudette Goulet and Paule Zerbid were lying on the floor. [ 58 ] Around 5 p.m., once all nine participants were lying on the floor, Gabrielle Fréchette sat down in her chair with Ginette Duclos seated to her left and Gérald Fontaine to her right. [ 59 ] The sweat unfolded in three rounds.

Each involved a guidance phase, during which Gabrielle Fréchette entered into a trance state and gave the participants instructions, followed by an introspection phase during which the participants remained silent. During the three phases where she entered into a trance state, Gabrielle Fréchette recorded herself with a tape-recorder. The first recording is complete, the second does not contain all the breathwork that she encouraged the participants to do, and for a reason unknown to Gabrielle Fréchette, the third time she entered into a trance state was not recorded.

Thus, two audio recordings were filed under exhibit P- 7b. The first from July 28, 2011, begins at 5:14 p.m. and lasts approximately 42 minutes. The second, also from July 28, 2011, begins at 8:04 p.m. and lasts 35 minutes. [ 60 ] While Gabrielle Fréchette claims to be in a trance state channelling Melkisédeck, Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine remain seated by her. [ 61 ] On the first audio recording, which begins at 5:14 p.m. (exhibit P-7b), opera music can be heard as Gabrielle Fréchette, in rather theatrical tones, delivers her thoughts and instructions to the nine participants.

She often repeats the same words, such as: [ translation ] At the heart of your canal, you inspire, you carry the sky and the earth simultaneously in your heart and with an exhale you deliver to the sky, to the earth. [ 62 ] With time, her voice rises.

Sometimes, she declares: [ translation ] That the time to die in this physical dimension has come. [16] [ 63 ] Speaking very loudly, she encourages the participants to: [ translation ] Push, push hard. [17] [ 64 ] Toward the end of this recording, she stops talking and very intense and powerful organ music can be heard. [ 65 ] After this first guidance given by Gabrielle Fréchette, there was a rest period referred to as [ translation ] “introspection”. All the participants remained lying on the floor of the room.

The co-accused took turns going down to the first floor to eat a snack, drink some water, and use the bathroom. [ 66 ] The second round of the sweat then got under way. Like the first time, Gabrielle Fréchette, in a trance state, gave her thoughts and commands through her [ translation ] “guidance” while opera music played in the background.

Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine remained seated until their involvement was required for the rebirthing exercises. [ 67 ] On occasion, in a very loud voice, Gabrielle Fréchette urged the participants to do an exercise, shouting: [ translation ] And with a strong exhale, you expand your canal by pushing very hard and with insistence. You must push. The canal is not used to this expansion. The masters are supporting you naturally and you push it, you push it, you push it. Push the canal so that it completely wraps the body of light... push, push.

At that point in the recording, screams, noises and moaning can be heard. [18] [ 68 ] Later, shouting, she repeatedly said: [ translation ] You breathe in deeply and you breathe out forcefully... faster, faster, with more force, come on, come on, wake up. With more force, get into it... keep it up... [19]

[ 69 ] It was immediately after this that the voices of the co-accused, Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine, can be heard shouting at the participants to breathe, to inhale deeply, over and over again, non-stop. [20] [ 70 ] Once again, many cries, noises and much moaning can be heard. This breathwork lasted about 45 minutes, but was only reproduced in part on the second audio recording, which starts at 8:04 p.m. (see exhibit P-7b). At the end of that quick breathing session, Julie Théberge removed her blankets and remained lying down on her bed.

She then fell asleep. [ 71 ] Julie Théberge told the Court that she removed her blankets for the following reasons: [ translation ] Well, because I was hot, and I'd had enough, so I came out. It was a spontaneous decision, for me, it was over, and I removed them. [21] [ 72 ] The second round of the sweat included another period of introspection that lasted about one hour, during which the participants remained stretched out in silence.

Once again, during this time, the co-accused took turns going down to the first floor for ten minutes or so, to rest use the bathroom, eat, and have something to drink. [ 73 ] It was toward the end of this second period of silence that Paule Zerbid, one of the participants, removed her blankets, and decided to leave the room. [ 74 ] Almost at the very instant, while Gabrielle Fréchette was taking a break on the ground floor, Gérald Fontaine and Ginette Duclos claim that they were circulating among the participants to supervise them and heard Chantal Lavigne speak.

Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine both stated that she was coherent. [ 75 ] Around 10:30 p.m., concerned with the reaction of some participants who were starting to move despite Melkisédeck's instructions (given through Gabrielle Fréchette) to stay in the room, Ginette Duclos decided to join Gabrielle Fréchette on the ground floor to inform her of the situation. Ginette Duclos told the Court: [ translation ] That some participants were starting to remove their blankets, and they were moving more so that's what I told Gabrielle, that the participants were tired.

I think that they wanted to come out of their lodges, it was time to... [22] [ 76 ] In spite of this warning, Gabrielle Fréchette returned to the large room and addressed only one of the participants, Claudette Goulet, who had removed her blankets, to inform her that she could nevertheless remain in the room since the session would soon be over.

She did not enquire about the well-being of the other participants. [ 77 ] Gabrielle Fréchette and the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine took their respective seats to start the third and final round of the sweat. [ 78 ] This round was not recorded, despite the fact that Gabrielle Fréchette attempted to do so. According to the co-accused, this round unfolded much like the first two. [ 79 ] Gabrielle Fréchette went into a trance state and, in the voice of Melkisédeck, began once again to give instructions.

According to her, she asked Ginette Duclos to remove the blankets from each participant after 45 minutes had passed. Gérald Fontaine stated that it was actually after 15 minutes. [ 80 ] The versions of the co-accused also differ as to the time at which the sweat ended.

According to Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine, the blankets were removed from the participants and the sweat ended between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. [ 81 ] Gabrielle Fréchette, however, estimates that the sweat ended between midnight and 12:15 a.m. since, as she puts it: [ translation ] We began to remove the blankets about five or seven minutes before my call to 811.

We had just removed the blankets. [23] The evidence reveals that this call was made at 12:33 a.m. [ 82 ] Whatever the case may be, according to the version of the co-accused, Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne felt discomfort at the end of the sweat. [ 83 ] That being the case, Gérald Fontaine and Gabrielle Fréchette took care of Julie Théberge, while Ginette Duclos took care of Chantal Lavigne. [ 84 ] She attempted to wake her up by whispering a few words in her ear. Chantal Lavigne had a runny nose and was sniffling. Ginette Duclos gave her a tissue into which she blew her nose. She massaged her hands and feet.

She put cold compresses on her body. Chantal Lavigne did not react. Her eyes were closed. [ 85 ] Ginette Duclos did not know what to do next. She asked Gérald Fontaine what to do. [ 86 ] For her part, Gabrielle Fréchette declared that she did not notice that Chantal Lavigne was showing any signs of distress that might have led her to believe that she was experiencing any discomfort.

She described Chantal Lavigne as being in a state of bliss, a beautiful state, when the blankets were removed from her body. [ 87 ] With Gérald Fontaine's help, Gabrielle Fréchette was busy taking care of Julie Théberge, who was vomiting and had defecated

in her blankets. They put cold compresses on her body. Julie Théberge asked them for sugar. [ 88 ] Thinking that she might be hypoglycemic, Gérald Fontaine gave her juice to drink, but she threw it up almost immediately. He then gave her some Nutella. It was at that point that her right hand went stiff. [ 89 ] It was at that very moment, 12:33 a.m., on July 29, 2011, that Gabrielle Fréchette dialled 811, the Info-Santé line, thinking that Julie Théberge was hypoglycemic.

In response to the questions asked by the nurse, Gabrielle Fréchette said that Julie Théberge's eyes had been fixed for the last fifteen minutes and that she kept asking for juice. [ 90 ] The nurse suggested that she call 911 immediately.

The audio recording of the call with Info-Santé was filed under exhibit P-12. [ 91 ] Gabrielle Fréchette then dialled 911, at 12:36 a.m. on July 29, 2011, telling the operator: [ translation ] I think it was too hot, I have two that are a little [ translation ] "out of it"! (This audio recording was filed under exhibit P-11). [ 92 ] It was later that the co-accused agreed to bring Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne down to the ground floor to lay them out on a blanket and to [ translation ] " give them more air ", according to Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine. [ 93 ] Gabrielle Fréchette declared that she noticed that Chantal Lavigne was unconscious only when Ginette Duclos told her that she was no longer responding to stimuli and that she was not waking up like she should have. [ 94 ] In that moment, 12:47 a.m., on July 29, 2011, she called 911 again asking for help.

The audio recording of that call was filed under exhibit P-11. [ 95 ] A first ambulance arrived on the scene at 12:57 a.m. on July 29, 2011. Jean Dumont is an ambulance technician and explained that the call he received prior to going to the scene with his partner Pascal Garant referred to two persons in distress as a result of diabetic issues.

That type of call is classified as one of the most urgent. [ 96 ] When he entered the house in Durham-Sud, he noticed two women on the floor: one, Julie Théberge, who was trying to vomit, the other, Chantal Lavigne, unconscious and breathing rapidly. [ 97 ] Because Chantal Lavigne was unconscious, he performed a blood sugar test on her first. When he determined that her her blood sugar level was 12.4 millimoles per litre (mM/L), he ruled out hypoglycemia, as a normal level is between 4 and 7 millimoles per litre (mM/L).

As for Julie Théberge, her blood sugar level was at 15.9 millimoles per litre (mM/L). [ 98 ] Jean Dumont was puzzled, so he attempted to find out from the co-accused who were on the scene what might have happened. At first, their answers were evasive. After a few questions, one of the co-accused ended up telling him that they were in a therapy house where they did breathwork exercises in mud baths. [ 99 ] Meanwhile, Chantal Lavigne was lying on her back, naked, covered in earth, under a blanket. Her pupils were unresponsive and she was on the verge of choking on her tongue.

Jean Dumont immediately inserted an oropharyngeal airway to clear her respiratory tract. [ 100 ] Her pulse was elevated and her blood oxygen level was 44%.

The normal level is 97%. [ 101 ] At 1:16 a.m., they placed an oxygen mask on her and as soon as the second ambulance team arrived on the scene to take care of Julie Théberge, they left for the Ste-Croix hospital in Drummondville. [ 102 ] Nicolas Prévost Drouin and Jean-Philippe Guay, ambulance technicians, also observed Julie Théberge’s unstable condition, high blood sugar, and confusion. [ 103 ] Her blood pressure was low (B.P. 81/48 millimetres of mercury mmHg). [ 104 ] Ginette Duclos told the ambulance technicians that a third woman, Viviane Boulair, was on the second floor vomiting.

Nicolas Prévost Drouin went to see her, but she refused treatment. The ambulance technicians left with Julie Théberge, who vomited in the ambulance during her transport. They went to the same hospital where Chantal Lavigne had been taken. [ 105 ] Dr. Daniel Lafleur, a general practitioner working in the emergency room, took charge of Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne when they arrived at the hospital around 1:39 a.m. on July 29, 2011. [ 106 ] He observed that Julie Théberge was confused, slightly drowsy, and nauseated.

She was unable to explain what was happening to her or the circumstances that had led to her physical state. [ 107 ] Her heartbeat was slightly elevated at 110 or 115 beats per minute. Her body temperature had risen to 38.8° Celsius. On this subject, Dr. Daniel Lafleur explained that when the patients arrived, their body temperature had had the time to decrease. He added that at its peak, it was probably much higher than 38.8° Celsius. [ 108 ] Her blood pressure was on the lower side of normal (B.P. 90-100/60-70 millimetres of mercury, mmHg).

Average blood pressure is 110-120/70 millimetres of mercury (mmHg). [ 109 ] After examining Julie Théberge and running some blood work, Dr. Daniel Lafleur diagnosed heatstroke with severe dehydration and class II shock. [ 110 ] Having come to this conclusion, he installed an intravenous drip to give her generous quantities of liquid to rehydrate her, about

4 litres in all. [ 111 ] He intervened to correct the situation because: [ translation ] If you do not intervene quickly, the outcome is usually fatal. [24] [ 112 ] He explained the definition of [ translation ] "shock".

It is cellular condition that occurs for a given reason or cause wherein blood circulation is insufficient and therefore incapable of carrying enough oxygen on a cellular level to organs and tissues. [ 113 ] There are four classes, depending on the severity of the shock: ➢ Class I shock represents blood loss between zero and 750 ml; ➢ Class II shock represents blood loss between 750ml and 1500 ml; ➢ Class III shock represents blood loss between 1500 ml and 2000 ml; ➢ Class IV shock is a critical state that represents blood loss in excess of 2 litres. [ 114 ] Dr.

Daniel Lafleur adds that it would have been unlikely for Julie Théberge to have been able to rehydrate herself by imbibing liquids. Her stomach and intestines had stopped functioning principally because of the lack of blood.

She had apparently vomited a significant amount of liquid (4 litres), and it would have required that much to rehydrate her. [ 115 ] Under cross-examination, he recounted that people are vulnerable to heatstroke when they do intense physical activity, even when they are not in a hot and humid environment. [ 116 ] In response to the Court's questions, however, he specified: [ translation ] But I would say that the environmental factors, the temperature and level of humidity are probably more significant than the exercise itself ... the intensity of the exercise. [25] [ 117 ] Still under cross-examination, he explained that body heat dissipates during rapid breathwork, but probably not in any significant way. [ 118 ] Julie Théberge insists on informing the Court of the circumstances that led to her admission to hospital and justifying them.

The day before, July 27, 2011, between 4 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., she had gone for a long, slow, twelve-kilometre walk with Chantal Lavigne. She did not hydrate properly. Upon her return, she ate an oatcake and went to bed around 11 p.m. The day of the event, she had eaten and drunk practically nothing. She had rested in her room. [ 119 ] She is not one to drink much water because does not feel the need to do so.

Three or four weeks before the sweat, she decided to stop drinking "7up", which she usually drank once or twice a day. [ 120 ] The withdrawal caused her to experience some shaking on two occasions but not after her twelve-kilometre walk or during the sweat that was held on July 28 and 29, 2011. [ 121 ] She did not tell the co-accused about this situation. Julie Théberge's blood pressure is usually low, around 85/60 millimetres of mercury (mmHg). [ 122 ] This former nurse told the Court: [ translation ] For my part, and I speak only for myself, of course I know that I was negligent when I went for a walk.

At the time, I did not hydrate. I do not like water... From my understanding, for me, I was negligent in that moment. [26] [ 123 ] Clearly, Julie Théberge trivializes her physical state upon arriving at the hospital and takes all the blame, wanting to protect the co-accused, whom she still trusts entirely but with whom she has not been in contact since their arrest. She recounts: [ translation ] I remember seeing the doctor who was worried because he found my blood pressure to be low. But I told him that my blood pressure had always been low, not to worry. So, the next morning he gave me the thumbs up to go home.

I remember feeling nauseated on a few occasions in the hospital. [27] When she testified, she did not refer to her advanced state of dehydration, as described by Dr. Daniel Lafleur. [ 124 ] Prior to the events, Julie Théberge had participated in at least three sweats directed by Gabrielle Fréchette, but never one that unfolded like the one held on July 28, 2011. On those other occasions, she had been seated on the ground, covered in blankets for about one hour. [ 125 ] Chantal Lavigne was in critical condition when she was brought to the hospital. She was comatose and her heart was beating at

165 beats per minute, while a usual heart rate is 60 to 100 beats per minute. She had great difficulty breathing. [ 126 ] Her blood pressure was 60 over 40 (B.P. 60/40 millimetres of mercury mmHg) and her body temperature was 40.5° Celsius. [ 127 ] She was therefore in class IV shock, the highest and most dangerous level. She was so very severely dehydrated that Dr.

Daniel Lafleur had to inject a solution into her bones because her veins were too atrophied from the lack of blood. [ 128 ] A 3-litre bolus was immediately given through the bones, after which 9 litres of liquid were administered intravenously. [ 129 ] Because of her respiratory issues, Chantal Lavigne was intubated. Soon after, she presented with a very serious complication from the shock, a disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIVC). [ 130 ] In his expert report, Dr.

Daniel Lafleur stated: [ translation ] It is one of the... one of the worst situation that we... find in medicine, that the body, because of generalized damage, starts to clot everywhere in the small blood vessels at the organ level, and uses all the platelets, the clotting factors, so everything you need to make clots is used in the wrong places and the second consequence is that... they begin to bleed abundantly again in places where there shouldn't normally be any bleeding. [28] [ 131 ] Then, Chantal Lavigne's main vital organs, deprived of oxygen, started shutting down one after the other. [ 132 ] With nothing left to do for Chantal Lavigne, she was transferred to the Fleurimont site of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, where her death was pronounced at 3:56 p.m. [ 133 ] After treating Chantal Lavigne and obtaining the results of her blood tests, Dr.

Daniel Lafleur diagnosed heatstroke with severe dehydration and class IV shock. [ 134 ] He distinguishes heatstroke from mere heat-related exhaustion, which manifests through dizziness, nausea, weakness, and sometimes headache, stomach ache, diarrhoea, muscle cramps and/or pain. [ 135 ] Heatstroke is more serious and the consequences more tragic. There are three necessary conditions or criteria: 1. To have been exposed to a hot and usually humid environment. — On this subject, he explains that the main way in which the body eliminates heat is through sweating.

However, if the body is wrapped and in a hot and humid environment, that coping mechanism is short-circuited . Breathing is another way of eliminating some heat, but it is not very efficient. 2. To have a body temperature of at least 40 degrees Celsius. 3. To have the following neurological symptoms: confusion, drowsiness, agitation, irritability, loss of conscience, convulsions and/or coma. [ 136 ] According to the testimony of her husband Patrick Naud, Chantal Lavigne did not have any health problems prior to the tragic events.

He never knew her to go to the hospital for any illness whatsoever. [ 137 ] At the time of the events, she had been working at the Cegep de Victoriaville for a few years and had two young children. Gradually, she had started pulling away from her family to take

part in the many training sessions offered by Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 138 ] Patrick Naud explained that since 2009, Chantal Lavigne had been literally obsessed with the teachings of Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 139 ] She took advantage of her second maternity leave to participate in [ translation ] "seminars" that would last two to three weeks. She then asked for a one-year unpaid sabbatical leave to follow the teachings of Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 140 ] She went so far as to use the maximum available on her credit cards and neglect to pay the family bills.

She was deeply in debt. [ 141 ] Patrick Naud stated that he was still paying for the retreat that killed his wife Chantal Lavigne. [ 142 ] On August 1, 2011, André Bourgault, a forensic pathologist with the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale (LSJML) in Montreal, performed the autopsy on the body of the victim Chantal Lavigne. [ 143 ] Based on the information obtained prior to the autopsy from the lead investigators on the case, from Dr.

Gilles Sainton (the coroner in charge of the investigation), and from the hospital records, which information was recorded in his forensic report dated February 23, 2012, and after making his autopsy observations, he found that Chantal Lavigne died of: [ translation ] Asphyxia through oxygen "deprivation", a consequence of having her head in a box with holes, covered with a blanket, with the victim using the oxygen available in the air but with inadequate air renewal; Hyperthermia and complications therefrom, the result of being wrapped in blankets and plastic film, which did not allow sufficient dispersal of body heat. (See exhibit P-23) [ 144 ] It was during the internal exam of the body of the victim Chantal Lavigne that Dr.

André Bourgault noticed:

➢ Brain swelling ➢ Renal failure and ➢ Oxygen deprivation of the intestine (mesenteric ischemia); [ 145 ] In his cross-examination of Dr. André Bourgault, counsel for Ginette Duclos suggested that the three observations he made during his internal exam could be related to causes other than asphyxia or hyperthermia (heatstroke). Dr. Bourgault added that this hypothesis was possible if each pathological finding was analyzed individually.

In the context and with the information previously given to him, however, he stated: [ translation ] It suggests hyperthermia, it also suggests possible asphyxia. [29] [ 146 ] He further stated: [ translation ] But for all three separate organs... to have suffered from oxygen deprivation suggests a systemic cause, you know, like generalized decreased blood pressure, not a localized problem, limited to the intestine or the kidney. [30] [ 147 ] Dr. André Bourgault added: [ translation ] If we limit ourselves to my observations, there are other possibilities to consider.

I would nevertheless like to add that an autopsy is not performed in a vacuum, it... if ever I was asked to perform an autopsy without asking myself... without being given any information, I would refuse...

So, in fact, what I mean to say is that part of my conclusion is supported by the information that I was given. [31] DEFENCE OF GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE [ 148 ] She called one of the participants in the [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar held in July of 2011, Claudette Goulet, to testify. [ 149 ] Claudette Goulet has been following the teachings of Gabrielle Fréchette for over twelve years now and has gone on many [ translation ] "initiatory journeys" in many countries. During all these years, she never asked Gabrielle Fréchette whether she had any recognized academic training whatsoever.

In July of 2011, she went to this [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar to improve certain personal aspects, get to know herself better, and develop better relationships with those in her social circle. These teachings bring her greater confidence and self-control. Even today, she follows the training sessions offered by Gabrielle Fréchette on various subjects. [ 150 ] The [ translation ] "Rebirthing" theme as explained by Claudette Goulet means to make a certain specific destructive aspect of oneself die.

In her case, this was her hastiness. [ 151 ] In August of 2010, Claudette Goulet was asked by Gabrielle Fréchette's daughter, Manon Labranche (Mawi), to live full-time in the Durham-Sud house, where the various seminars are held. She works there doing household chores. In exchange, she does not have to pay any of the accommodation fees the other participants must pay.

She paid $1,500 for the actual "seminar" in July of 2011. [ 152 ] When asked whether the co-accused had enquired about the state of her health prior to the sweat in July of 2011, she said hesitantly: [ translation ] Well one thing's for certain and it's that I had a responsibility to... express what was going on with my health, and um... [32] [ 153 ] Her answer indisputably indicates that no such questions were ever put to her. [ 154 ] Regarding the instructions that might have been given prior to the sweat, Claudette Goulet recounts that the evening before the sweat, about 24 hours prior to it, after the afternoon workshop, she received very clear instructions and understood that she had to eat well, hydrate and rest.

She said: [ translation ] The recommendations were made by Séréna and her team... they were given to everyone at the same time. [33] [ 155 ] Gabrielle Fréchette was 56 years old when she testified and introduced herself as a "guide". [ 156 ] She described her long background, her various jobs, and her involvement with multiple organizations. [ 157 ] During her childhood, she sustained many injuries, some because of her alcoholic and incestuous father. When she was seventeen, she was raped. [ 158 ] In January of 1989, she was hospitalized in Montreal to undergo back surgery.

During anaesthesia, she hovered between life and death for eight minutes, but she came back and woke up. It was at that specific moment, she states, that she realized that something special had just happened. She was no longer the same; her husband and her children meant nothing to her.

[ 159 ] She entered therapy and met people who introduced her to Reiki. She trained extensively. [ 160 ] Gradually, she became aware of the powers that inhabit her and people soon began to come to see her day and night, to ask her questions and seek her advice. [ 161 ] Overwhelmed, she chose to offer consultations, in exchange for payment.

She gave personal growth training sessions in Quebec and Europe, but did not have any officially accredited academic training in the field. [ 162 ] Concurrently, she took courses on energy and personal growth that were offered in various countries like the Dominican Republic, Australia, Spain, and the Philippines.

In the space of eighteen months, she invested $56,000. [ 163 ] Under cross-examination, Gabrielle Fréchette could not confirm whether the many courses she attended were offered by people who had any official academic training. [ 164 ] In 1999, she bought a large plot of land on which stood a school, which she transformed into a therapy and training centre. In 2007, she declared bankruptcy. [ 165 ] Meanwhile, in 2002, she met Patrick Dacquay, a shaman, during a conference she was giving in Europe. The two conversed.

The following year, in 2003, she organized an [ translation ] "initiatory journey" to Brittany with a group of individuals and asked him to attend for a few days so that he could share his knowledge with her. [ 166 ] In 2004, Gabrielle Fréchette invited the shaman Patrick Dacquay to Quebec to give a lecture on shamanic philosophy in particular and various energy treatments, including sweat lodges.

This activity took place at the therapy centre operated by Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 167 ] This was when she was first introduced to sweat lodges, which are used to [ translation ] "bring a higher level of consciousness, allowing freedom from the physical, emotional, and sensory restraints of deep wounds", she claims. [ 168 ] Gabrielle Fréchette explained the sweat lodge training she received from the shaman Patrick Dacquay. She recounted: [ translation ] That was when he taught me about shamanic philosophy.

He led several lodges on my land there, and he began by having me experience lodges, then he taught me the basics of lodges, and then there were other stages where I was, I would say, his right hand, while he led the lodges. After that, there were other stages where he no longer led but let me lead and remained seated to supervise me. And slowly, I took in the subject matter and all the basics of sweat lodges.

Then I went to spend a week at his home in Brittany where he was giving training and he would ask me during the training to introduce some of my own teachings, and he finalized my training as a sweat lodge leader. [34] [ 169 ] Gabrielle Fréchette has acted as a [ translation ] "sweat lodge leader" since 2004. After completing her internship, she gradually began to lead by herself, under the supervision of Patrick Dacquay, for periods lasting at most 45 minutes to 1 hour. She herself has experienced lodges of all kinds.

She stated: [ translation ] I tried some, tried, tried, some long, some short, all kinds, outside, inside, seated, lying down, you know, all the kinds of sweat lodges that exist. I even experienced one that lasted almost 24 hours...led by Patrick Dacquay. [35] [ 170 ] Cross-examined about the types of sweat lodges the shaman Patrick Dacquay taught her, Gabrielle Fréchette said that there were: [ translation ] ➢ those held outside where participants are seated, where the lodge is built with supple sapling wood bent into rounded shapes and covered with plastic sheeting and blankets.

Inside, a hole is dug in which stones that were first heated in a fire are placed, and then water is poured over the stones, creating a lot of steam; ➢ The collective interior lodges, where participants might be seated or standing in a circle covered in blankets and ➢ [ translation ] "lodges where participants lie down". [36] [ 171 ] Later in her testimony, Gabrielle Fréchette qualified this statement to explain that throughout her training with Patrick Dacquay, she never experienced the [ translation ] "sweat lodges where participants lie down". [ 172 ] She also asserts that Patrick Dacquay, her trainer, never taught her or even experienced with her the technique she used to lead the sweat held on July 28 and29, 2011, that is: ➢ Applying wet earth directly on the body of the participants; ➢ Wrapping the body of each participant in a plastic tarp; and ➢ Placing a cardboard box over each participant's head and laying blankets directly on top. [ 173 ] According to her version, the instructions she gave the participants in preparation for the sweat to be held on July 28 and 29, 2011, were limited to telling them the evening before the sweat to hydrate properly, eat, and rest.

[ 174 ] On this subject, she declared: [ translation ] I merely reminded them with key words, without repeating everything they were already aware of. [37] [ 175 ] She unhesitatingly admitted that when the participants showed up to begin the sweat, she did not ask them in any way whether they had eaten properly, or if they had hydrated themselves and rested.

She did not give them any recommendations before they entered. [ 176 ] She also admitted that the participants had not received any information from her or the co-accused beforehand about the expected duration or the methods that would be used in the sweat, that is, being covered in mud and wrapped in a plastic tarp and having a cardboard box placed over their heads. [ 177 ] Gabrielle Fréchette characterized the nine participants as experienced.

She did say, however, that prior to July 28 and 29, 2011, Julie Théberge had never experienced a sweat where the participants lie down according to the methods described above. [ 178 ] As for Chantal Lavigne , Gabrielle Fréchette was unable to tell the Court whether she had participated in any such lodges and if so, their precise duration. [ 179 ] With respect to any verifications regarding the health of the participants she might have made prior to the sweat and more specifically regarding the health of Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne, Gabrielle Fréchette stated that she had spoken with them about the subject when they experienced their first sweat in 2008 or 2009.

She confirmed that none of the participants was asked to fill out any form regarding the state of their health. They could simply let her know verbally if there were any changes. [ 180 ] Gabrielle Fréchette admitted that she does not have any medical training and has never taken any cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses. [ 181 ] As for the supervision of the participants during the sweat , Gabrielle Fréchette stated that while she was in a trance state and [ translation ] "guiding", she remained seated in her chair.

She basically told the Court that in that moment: [ translation ] It's Melkisédeck who is seeing through my eyes. [38] [ 182 ] Under cross-examination, she was asked the following question: [ translation ] How could you see the participants when earlier in your testimony you said that they were all covered up without exception, that there was no part of the body that was peeking through the blankets, how could you supervise these participants? [39] [ 183 ] Gabrielle Fréchette answered: [ translation ] We hear, we look, if they are experiencing discomfort, they will move an arm, or a leg, they will... and then we'll go check if they are numb or if everything is OK.

We observe, we hear their breathing and, like I told you, many of them talk to themselves inside the lodge, so we hear what they are saying, we hear... between the moments of teaching, we get closer, we listen, we look, we can see the stomach going up and down, and if there is no sign, there are no gasps, nothing, then it's obvious that the person is OK. [40] DEFENCE OF GINETTE DUCLOS [ 184 ] Ginette Duclos was 63 years old when she testified. From 1973 to 1997, she worked for Bell Canada.

She started off as a customer service representative and in 1984 was promoted to customer service manager, a position in which she remained for 24 years. [ 185 ] In 1982, she developed an interest in spiritual teachings and took a few courses, including one as a [ translation ] "rebirthing coach" given in Bromont in 1996 over a one-year period. [ 186 ] Since then, she has regularly practised this technique and given many courses in it. She also explained that none of the participants have ever felt any discomfort. [ 187 ] She met Gabrielle Fréchette at one of her workshops in 1996.

In 2004, she began to act as a [ translation ] "rebirthing coach" in some of the "seminars" led by Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 188 ] With Fréchette and other participants, she has been on many [ translation ] "initiatory journeys" to other countries around the world. In her own words, the purpose of these journeys was: [ translation ] To meet alternate realities. [41] [ 189 ] She met Julie Théberge in July of 2008 and Chantal Lavigne in November of 2009 at "seminars" given by Gabrielle Fréchette.

She was never close to them, and before the sweat on July 28, 2011, she did not ask them whether they had any previous experience with sweats .

[ 190 ] She acknowledged that on July 28, 2011, around 3:30 p.m., as all the participants were arriving for the sweat, she did not ask them any questions about whether they had eaten well, hydrated themselves or rested. She did not give them any instructions or make any recommendations. [ 191 ] As for supervising the participants during the sweat , Ginette Duclos stated that while Gabrielle Fréchette (Melkisédeck) was [ translation ] "guiding", she remained seated to her left, where she could see all the participants.

When Gabrielle Fréchette (Melkisédeck) finished and the introspection phase began, Ginette Duclos was told by Gabrielle Fréchette (Melkisédeck) to walk among the mattresses to ask the participants about how they felt. [ 192 ] Referring to her supervision of the participant Jean-Raphael Carminati, she stated: [ translation ] I made sure that he was settled comfortably, that he was not moving, to remove the sheets, to leave, but that if he wanted to leave, well I would accompany him... if the breathing was steady... I approached and listened... to the individual's breathing...

I checked to make sure there were no words or movements that might signify that someone was in need of help. [42] [ 193 ] Ginette Duclos said that these checks were performed for every participant by herself, by Gérald Fontaine, or by Gabrielle Fréchette. [ 194 ] Specifically, Ginette Duclos stated that, during the second round of the sweat, in the [ translation ] "guiding" phase, when she and Gérald Fontaine shouted non-stop for 45 minutes to provoke the participants to breath rapidly, she was simultaneously moving among them and could hear them breathing.

She added that she did not notice anything out of the ordinary. [ 195 ] When cross-examined on the answers she gave about the manner in which she supervised participants, Ginette Duclos declared that despite the many blankets covering them, she could hear them breathing.

She said: [ translation ] I looked at the body moving and listened... through feeling and presence... we were connected to them. [43] [ 196 ] In a written statement to police officers on December 8, 2011, which she acknowledges to have been made freely and voluntarily, she stated that she knew whether the participants were breathing because, in her view, it was a question of feeling based on the vibrations they were giving off. [ 197 ] Before the Court, she first stated that she could see the participants' stomach or chest moving, but she then qualified this statement, saying instead that she could feel and sense the movement. [ 198 ] Ginette Duclos did not see the need to intervene if a participant was lying comfortably and not showing any signs during the sweat because, as she hesitantly put it: [ translation ] They are going through their own experience. [44] [ 199 ] It was out of obedience to the teachings of the entity Melkisédeck, channelled by Gabrielle Fréchette, that Ginette Duclos organized the sweat held on July 28 and 29, 2011.

She trusted her entirely. She considered that the instructions that Fréchette gave her on July 27, 2011, for preparing the sweat were appropriate to the process related to the theme of [ translation ] "Rebirthing". She admitted, however, that it was the first time that she had experienced lodges where mud, plastic tarps, and cardboard boxes were used. [ 200 ] She admitted that she has no knowledge of first aid techniques aside from a basic course she took several years ago and that she does not know how to recognize the symptoms of heatstroke.

She knows, however, that the purpose of the "lodge" is to be hot and to increase body temperature. [ 201 ] When Chantal Lavigne and Julie Théberge left in ambulances, Ginette Duclos went back to the large room to clean up, believing that there would be another workshop the next day. She assumed that the two participants would return to complete the "seminar". DEFENCE OF GÉRALD FONTAINE [ 202 ] Gérald Fontaine was 41 years old when he testified.

He is a cook and pastry chef, as well as a licensed massage therapist. [ 203 ] Since 1997, he has attended all kinds of personal growth workshops and is always looking to broaden his knowledge of the subject. [ 204 ] It was through these interests that he met Gabrielle Fréchette in 2004, at a conference she was giving. [ 205 ] He is a true follower of the teachings of Gabrielle Fréchette, and in 2009, Fréchette asked him to act as [ translation ] "trance director" during her workshops. [ 206 ] He described Gabrielle Fréchette's condition – her voice, syntax, and timbre change – when she is in a trance state and channelling the entity Melkisédeck.

He said: [ translation ] For me, Melkisédeck is real. [45]

[ 207 ] The entire [ translation ] "Rebirthing" seminar was orchestrated by Gabrielle Fréchette. Melkisédeck expresses himself through her and he decided how the sweat would unfold in July of 2011. [ 208 ] It was out of obedience to his instructions that Gérald Fontaine acted and participated in the sweat held on July 28 and 29, 2011. [ 209 ] As for the instructions he gave the participants the evening before the sweat, Gérald Fontaine declared: [ translation ] ... personally, no, I did not make any recommendations to the participants.

I did give them instructions for the next day... the time it would begin, what to bring, how to come, generally, that was it. [46] [ 210 ] He acknowledged that the participants did not fill out any questionnaires regarding their health and that they were not informed of the manner in which the sweat in July of 2011 would unfold. [ 211 ] During the sweat, while Gabrielle Fréchette was [ translation ] "guiding", he remained seated to her right.

During the introspection phase, he would get up and, with Ginette Duclos, would walk among the participants to supervise them. [ 212 ] On this matter, he stated: [ translation ] We would walk near them and observe how they were doing and... we could see them move, we saw them, sometimes some of them might scratch themselves or shift their position.

So, our job was to check that everything was going well, the breathing and if the blankets were moving up or down, if we could see the breathing clearly... we could still see the blankets move slightly near the thorax and the abdomen. [47] [ 213 ] Under cross-examination, he added that in the introspection phases, if the participants did not give him some sign, he would not speak to them and would: [ translation ] Let them have their own experience. [48] [ 214 ] On five to seven occasions in the past, he has experienced sweats as a participant.

These sweats lasted three hours at most but never involved mud, plastic tarps, and a cardboard box. [ 215 ] In 2010, he took a cardiopulmonary resuscitation course, but told the Court that despite this training, on the night of July 29, 2011, he did not know what to do for Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne, who were clearly in terrible physical states. He claims that he thought Julie Théberge was hypoglycemic. [ 216 ] From the evidence, it appears that a first aid kit, which would have ensured the comfort and safety of the participants, was not available on site.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 217 ] First, criminal negligence is defined under

section 219 of the Criminal Code : 219.

(1) Criminal negligence – Every one is criminally negligent who: (

a) in doing anything, or; (b) ... shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons . [ 218 ] Under Canadian criminal law, negligence becomes an offence only when it causes death or bodily harm (sections 220 and 221 Cr. C. ). [ 219 ]

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines "bodily harm" as any injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature. [ 220 ] Consent is not a defence in matters of criminal negligence.

Section 14 of the Criminal Code is unequivocal about this. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Jobidon [49] rejected this defence where there is bodily harm. [ 221 ] In other words, the fact that the victim consented is not a defence, excuse, or justification for the actions of an accused because criminal negligence involves wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. [ 222 ] In R. v. Deschatelets [50] (decision under appeal), Provost, J.C.Q. illustrated this rule clearly: [ translation ] ... For example, the driver of a car must disregard the consent of a person who wants and agrees to lie down on the roof of a car while the driver sets it in motion.

The driver's involvement in such a scheme could very well, in the event of injury or death, result in charges of criminal negligence or manslaughter, even if the victim gave his or her consent. [ 223 ] Even though consent cannot be raised in defence, it is worthwhile to note that for consent to exist, it must be informed. Consent cannot be valid if the person giving it is insufficiently informed. In this case, the participants were told only that a sweat would be held, without being given any further information.

They did not know anything about the way in which the activity would unfold. [ 224 ] That being the case, the prosecution must prove both the actus reus and the mens rea of the offence of criminal negligence.

In this case, the prosecution submits that it has met the burden of proof and seven judgments were filed in support of its arguments. [51] [ 225 ] With respect to the actus reus , the trier of fact must be objectively convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused "by doing anything, showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons", as it states in the provision at issue. [ 226 ] According to the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v.

Beatty : [52] The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea. In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused’s actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances.

Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused. Short of incapacity to appreciate the risk or incapacity to avoid creating it, the accused’s personal attributes such as age, experience and education are not relevant. The standard against which the conduct must be measured is the conduct expected of the reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.

The reasonable person, however, must be put in the circumstances the accused found himself or herself in when the events occurred in order to assess the reasonableness of the conduct. [ 227 ] The Supreme Court of Canada characterizes this approach as the modified objective test. It is used to determine the mens rea required in cases of indictable offences based on negligence. [ 228 ] According to R. v.

J.F. , [53] there are two ways to prove a marked departure: the accused was aware of a danger or risk to the health or safety of others but did not take it into account, or the accused did not consider the risk to the health or safety of others that a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances would have considered. [ 229 ] The prosecution need not prove that the accused knew or foresaw the consequences of his conduct. [54] [ 230 ] After analyzing the leading cases from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tutton , R. v. Hundal and R. v. Beatty , [55] the Court of Appeal of Quebec, in Salame v.

R. , [56] summarized the approach that should be taken when ruling on the merits of a charge of criminal negligence: [ translation ] ... It is first of all important to remember that the analysis must be contextual and that the conduct of the accused must reveal a marked departure, which is what distinguishes a criminal fault from a civil fault.

This analysis of the conduct must be carried out with reference to an objective test, meaning that the judge must be satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the accused was entirely and in all respects outside the norm and thus constitutes a marked departure from the norm. The judge must therefore assess this conduct against that of a reasonable person and decide whether such a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused would have been aware of the risk that the conduct of the accused would have posed to the life or safety of another person.

The personal characteristics of the accused, such as age and education level, are not relevant, but the judge “must consider evidence about the actual state of mind of the accused, if any, to determine whether it raises a reasonable doubt about whether a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have been aware of the risk created by this conduct [ 231 ] We will now consider the issue of being a party to the offence.

Section 21 of the Criminal Code defines being a party to the offence: Party to an offence – 21.

(1) Every one is a party to an offence who (

a) actually commits it; (

b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (

c) abets any person in committing it. 2. ... [ 232 ] R. v. M.R. [57] states that it is necessary for the aider to do something with intent to assist conduct that is criminally negligent and know sufficient details of the assisted conduct to render that conduct criminally negligent. Thus, the act to which the participant knowingly contributes must be a marked and substantial departure from what would be reasonable in the circumstances. It is not necessary for the participant to have subjectively foreseen the consequences of the criminally negligent act which he or she assisted.

It is sufficient to show that a reasonable person, under any circumstance, would have foreseen that the act would result in bodily harm that was neither negligible nor insignificant. [ 233 ] Regarding the notion of causality between the unlawful action committed and the bodily harm or the death of a person, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly states in R v. Maybin [58] that:

... An accused’s unlawful actions need not be the only cause of death, or even the direct cause of death; the court must determine if the accused’s actions are a significant contributing cause of death. [ 234 ] This principle was also applied in Smithers v. R. and R. v.

Nette . [59] [ 235 ] The Court has not found any judgments on the subject that would delineate the legal parameters of the type of activity at issue in this case. [ 236 ] We do know, however, that sweat lodges are an ancestral Aboriginal technique that is practised outside. [ 237 ] That being so, it is appropriate to rely only on the evidence and perform a contextual analysis. [ 238 ] The only aspects of the evidence that are inconsistent and that must be determined are the following: ➢ Did the co-accused Gabrielle Fréchette and/or the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine give the participants instructions prior to the sweat to make sure that they hydrated themselves, ate and rested? ➢ Did the sweat end between 11 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. or around 12:15 a.m.? [ 239 ] Once this is done, the Court will analyze first the defence submitted by the co-accused Gabrielle Fréchette and then the defences submitted by the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine.

REGARDING THE CO-ACCUSED GABRIELLE FRÉCHETTE [ 240 ] In her defence, the co-accused, through her counsel, submits that she was not criminally negligent for the following reasons: ➢ Because she is trained to lead sweats; ➢ She is competent and experienced; ➢ The participants were also experienced; ➢ The participants agreed to participate in the sweat; ➢ They were free to take part or not; ➢ They could have left at any moment if they felt uncomfortable; ➢ The sweat was supervised by all the co-accused; ➢ The instructions given to the participants prior to the sweat were to hydrate themselves, eat well, and rest; ➢ In spite of these instructions, on the eve of the sweat, Julie Théberge and Chantal Lavigne took a long walk of about twelve kilometres and did not sufficiently hydrate themselves.

Therefore, the co-accused submits that they were entirely responsible for the resulting consequences. [ 241 ] Her counsel submits four judgments in support of his arguments. [60] [ 242 ] Because Gabrielle Fréchette testified, the Court must assess her credibility according to the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. W. (D.) . [61] [ 243 ] The Court has analyzed her testimony on the basis of all the evidence and does not believe several aspects thereof.

Her explanations do not raise any reasonable doubt. [ 244 ] Gabrielle Fréchette gave testimony that was at times unlikely and at other times inconsistent, in addition to delivering an occasionally halting recital, giving the impression that she was attempting to adjust her version as she went along. [ 245 ] For example, in chief, she declared that she had received sweat lodge training from the shaman Patrick Dacquay. She claimed that she had experienced all types of sweat lodges (outside, inside, seated, lying down).

When cross-examined, she qualified her testimony and stated that she had never experienced a [ translation ] "lodge where the participants lie down". Moreover, she admitted that Patrick Dacquay never taught her about or even experienced with her a [ translation ] "lodge where the participants are lying down" by using mud, a plastic tarp and a cardboard box. [ 246 ] Also, she characterized the nine participants as experienced with sweat lodges.

When referring to Julie Théberge, Gabrielle Fréchette contradicted herself by stating that Théberge had never experienced a sweat lying down with mud, a plastic tarp, and a cardboard box.

In addition, she could not confirm to the Court whether Chantal Lavigne had ever had this experience. [ 247 ] The Court does not accept Gabrielle Fréchette's assertion that she gave the participants specific instructions about hydration, food, and rest on the eve of the sweat. [ 248 ] The version she gave the Court is not repeated in the other testimony, except in that of Claudette Goulet, a participant, who testified in defence of Fréchette. [ 249 ] Need we reiterate that Julie Théberge and Louise Pelletier, the co-accused Gérald Fontaine's mother, stated without hesitation that they did not receive any instructions from the co-accused on the eve of the sweat.

The testimony of the co-accused Gérald Fontaine

confirms their versions. [ 250 ] Yet, to this day, all these people worship Gabrielle Fréchette and can see no benefit to be drawn from lying to the Court. [ 251 ] Moreover, the testimony of Claudette Goulet, particularly on this aspect of the evidence, was undeniably concerned with giving a recital that would confirm or corroborate Gabrielle Fréchette's as closely as possible. She stated that the recommendations were made by Séréna (Gabrielle Fréchette) and her team, when all the participants were present .

This statement runs counter to the versions of Julie Théberge, Louise Pelletier and the co-accused Gérald Fontaine. [ 252 ] From this perspective, the Court cannot accept the version of Claudette Goulet, and she is discredited as a witness. [ 253 ] On July 27, 2011, during the recorded preparatory meeting for the sweat, Gabrielle Fréchette gave an order to the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine that the participants were not allowed to bring water or food to be consumed during the activity. [ 254 ] In court, she stated that she did not inform the participants of any such restrictions.

Gabrielle Fréchette did not give testimony that was frank, honest, and reliable. [ 255 ] Even the co-accused Gérald Fontaine contradicted her on this aspect of the evidence. [ 256 ] The Court accepts the indisputable evidence that the participants were not allowed to bring any beverages or food for the activity. [ 257 ] Gabrielle Fréchette's explanation of the way in which the participants were supervised during the sweat is completely unlikely. [ 258 ] She submits that her supervision was adequate.

This assertion has significant credibility issues. [ 259 ] How could she conclude that a participant was fine, based only on the fact that he or she had not made any particular signs or noises? [ 260 ] The Court had the benefit of hearing two audio recordings of the sweat where shouts, noises, and moans are clearly heard. Gabrielle Fréchette's assertion is as surprising as it is impossible.

At no point during the phases where the participants make sounds did Gabrielle Fréchette and the co-accused Ginette Duclos and Gérald Fontaine attempt to verify their state of well-being by raising the duvets covering the boxes in which the participants had place

[…]