2020 QCCQ 6004, 2020 QCCQ 6004

R. c. Keenan 2020 QCCQ 6004 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU “Criminal and Penal Division” No.: 550-01-103381-176 DATE: October 16, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE ANOUK DESAULNIERS J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN v.

CARL KEENAN Offender ______________________________________________________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The offender, Carl Keenan, was found guilty of assaulting Diane Davies and causing her bodily harm on December 14, 2017, in La Pêche. [ 2 ] The facts of this case are described in detail in the verdict rendered in writing on July 8, 2020. [1] They can be briefly described as follows. [ 3 ] The assault took place in Gatineau Park, where Mr. Keenan and Ms. Davies had rented a yurt for the weekend.

They were a couple at the time, but their relationship was marked by distrust and frequent arguments. [ 4 ] Mr. Keenan and Ms. Davies started quarrelling shortly after their arrival at the yurt on Friday night, and this stormy mood continued throughout the next day. On Saturday evening, Mr. Keenan entered into a state of jealous rage over what he perceived as infidelity by Ms. Davies. He pushed her into the snow outside the yurt and, once inside, he pushed her again on two occasions. The second push, which was quite forceful, propelled Ms. Davies against a bed frame.

She hit her head and was rendered unconscious for an indeterminate amount of time. When she regained consciousness, Ms. Davies realized that Mr. Keenan was looking through her cell phone. She gathered her strength to claim it. Mr. Keenan refused to hand it back; instead, he ran off with the phone while insulting Ms. Davies and accusing her once again of being unfaithful. [ 5 ] Ms. Davies chased him and they ran in circles inside the yurt, while Mr. Keenan continued to go through the device and refused to give it back. Mr. Keenan hit Ms. Davies on the jaw and shoulder in his efforts to keep her phone. [ 6 ] Ms.

Davies suffered bruises and contusions as a result of all these assaults, which caused her physical pain for a week. [ 7 ] Mr. Keenan has been an officer with the Ottawa police for 10 years. He submits that, at the time of the events, he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was also going through a painful separation with the mother of his two young children. He seeks a conditional discharge with a two-year probation period.

The Crown, on the other hand, submits that a discharge would not be appropriate in the circumstances, suggesting instead a suspended sentence and a probation order. [ 8 ] For the following reasons, I find that a conditional discharge would be in Mr. Keenan’s best interest and not contrary to the public interest. ANALYSIS 1. The law

[ 9 ] Carl Keenan was found guilty of the

summary conviction offence of assault causing bodily harm. Under

section 267(

b) of the Criminal Code ( Cr. C. ), the maximum sentence for this offence is a term of imprisonment of 18 months. There is no minimum sentence. 1.1 Purpose and principles of sentencing [ 10 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are provided at sections 718 to 718.2 Cr. C. [ 11 ] The objectives of sentencing include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation of offenders, acknowledgment of the harm they have done, and reparations for this harm. [2] [ 12 ]

Section 718.1 Cr. C. provides, as a fundamental principle in sentencing, that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Proportionality is achieved by reconciling the need to individualize the sentencing process (i.e., considering the accused themselves and the offence they committed) and the need for parity of sentences. [3]

Section 718.2 Cr. C. provides that a sentence should be adjusted to reflect aggravating or mitigating circumstances and be similar to other sentences imposed in similar circumstances on similar offenders. [4] [ 13 ] The fact that Mr. Keenan assaulted his girlfriend [5] constitutes an aggravating circumstance, as provided at paragraph 718.2( a ) (ii)) Cr. C. 1.2 Conditional discharge [ 14 ] Section 730(1) Cr.

C. provides that a court may order that an offender be discharged “if it considers it to be in the best interest of the accused and not contrary to the public interest”. [ 15 ] Where a court directs that an offender be discharged of an offence, the offender is deemed not to have been convicted [6] and no criminal record is imposed. [ 16 ] The granting of a discharge is not intended as an exceptional measure. [7] Moreover, it is not limited to technical or trivial offences. [8] For example, the courts have ordered discharges in relation to objectively serious offences such as sexual assault, [9] luring a child, [10] voyeurism, [11] assault causing bodily harm, [12] and fraud [13] .

In the best interest of the offender [ 17 ] Generally, a discharge will be in an offender’s best interest where he or she is a person of good character and there is no need for deterrence from future offences. [14] Hence, risk of recidivism should be taken into account, [15] as well as any steps toward rehabilitation taken by the offender. [16] The Court may also consider whether the imposition of a criminal record may have significant adverse repercussions for the offender, including professional harm and potential loss of employment. [17] [ 18 ] To meet this criteria, the offender need not demonstrate actual damage to his or her career or means of making a living; the possibility of such damage will suffice.

However, this possibility must be more than theoretical or hypothetical; it must be supported by evidence. [18] Not contrary to public interest [ 19 ] As for public interest, the Court must consider whether a discharge would be contrary to the best interests of the community.

The Court may take into account, among other factors, the seriousness of the offence in itself and for the community, [19] the need for general deterrence, [20] the harm suffered by the victim, whether this type of offence is prevalent in the community, [21] and public confidence in the administration of justice. [22] [ 20 ] The courts have regularly refused to order a discharge in cases involving domestic violence, based on a number of factors, including the objective of denunciation, the fact that Parliament has specifically identified domestic violence as an aggravating factor, and the need to protect public confidence in the administration of justice. [23] [ 21 ] But this is not to say that a discharge may never be ordered in cases of domestic violence.

The courts have ruled on many occasions that, in suitable and exceptional circumstances involving an appropriate offender, a discharge can satisfy the needs for denunciation and public deterrence even where the offence was committed in a context of domestic violence. [24] [ 22 ] Also, it bears mentioning that our Court of Appeal has often opined that the objectives of denunciation and public deterrence, although worthy, can prove vague and of uncertain efficacy. [25] These objectives must be carefully weighed in conjunction with the other sentencing purpose and objectives. [26] 2.

The Law applied to the facts 2.1 A discharge would be in the best interest of the offender [ 23 ] Carl Keenan is 44 years old and does not have a criminal record. He has been a police officer for the city of Ottawa for ten years, although subject to a suspension for the last three years after being charged in the present case. [ 24 ] Inspector Robert Drummond of the Ottawa Police Service explained in a letter that, under the Police Service Act , [27] the accused will be subject to an investigation following the completion of the present case.

A penalty will be imposed if he is found guilty of a disciplinary misconduct. [28] Penalties under the Police Service Act range from forfeiture of hours to dismissal, depending on the seriousness of the misconduct. [29]

[ 25 ] Thus, Mr. Keenan faces the real possibility of a suspension, demotion, or altogether dismissal from the Ottawa Police Service; this risk is more than theoretical or hypothetical. [ 26 ] The defence submits, and the Crown does not contest, that a discharge would reduce (but not eliminate) Mr. Keenan’s risk of being dismissed from the Ottawa Police Service. [ 27 ] Mr.

Keenan successfully demonstrated that a discharge would be in his best interest. 2.2 A Discharge woud not be contrary to public interest [ 28 ] For the following reasons, I find that directing a discharge in the present case would not be contrary to the public interest.

Police officers are not foreclosed from benefitting from a discharge [ 29 ] Police officers play a pivotal role in society and must uphold high moral standards in all aspects of their lives. [30] [ 30 ] However, this does not mean that, as a matter of principle, they are foreclosed from benefiting from a discharge when they are found guilty of committing an offence.

This is especially true when, as in the present case, the offence was not related to their function. [31] [ 31 ] The courts have on numerous occasions granted discharges to police officers, [32] even in cases involving domestic violence. [33] Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits. The offence is at the lower range of seriousness [ 32 ] As noted above, the fact that the offence was committed in a context of domestic violence is an aggravating factor. However, the Court notes that this case proceeded on

summary conviction (a less serious offence than an indictable offence). Also, the injuries sustained by the victim consisted of bruises and were not long-lasting. [ 33 ] It is fair to say that the offence is at the lower range of seriousness, both objectively and subjectively. This is reflected in the Crown’s position on sentencing, i.e. a suspended sentence with a probation period. The risk of reoffending is minimal [ 34 ] Mr. Keenan is divorced and is the father of two children, aged 4 and 8. Their mother, Ms. Mélanie Tremblay, reports that Mr.

Keenan maintains a strong and healthy co-parenting relationship with her, and that he is a supportive and loving father to his children. [34] [ 35 ] Mr. Keenan is in a relationship with Ms. Melanie Bowen, who prepared a detailed reference letter in his support. [35] [ 36 ] Mr. Keenan filed 16 reference letters from friends, co-workers, and past and current partners. [36] They unanimously emphasize that the actions which led to the present charge are out of Mr. Keenan’s normal character. [ 37 ] A few months after the events, Mr. Keenan was referred to a psychologist, Dr. Phil Ritchie, for stress-related issues.

Dr. Ritchie met Mr. Keenan for 23 sessions to support him in the management of PTSD symptoms that likely go back to Mr. Keenan’s deployment to Afghanistan in 2007 while he was serving in the Canadian Forces Military Police. These symptoms were exacerbated in the year leading up to the December 2017 events by the loss of two close family members and traumatic incidents that took place during Mr. Keenan’s duties with the Ottawa Police Service. Both Dr. Ritchie and Dr. Mellissa Forbes, Mr. Keenan’s family doctor, find that he was suffering from severe emotional distress at the time of the events involving Ms.

Davies. [37] [ 38 ] Dr. Ritchie notes that Mr. Keenan was “forthright and honest in all [their] sessions” and is now “able to focus on managing his reactions to [PTSD] triggers”. [ 39 ] Thus, since December 2017, the accused has taken significant steps to overcome the psychological issues that contributed to his violent actions in the present case. [ 40 ] In addition, Mr. Keenan has not remained idle during his leave with the Ottawa Police Service pending the outcome of this case. He went back to school and graduated from a three-year full-time university program in criminology.

He intends to continue on this path by completing a degree in psychology. [ 41 ] These positive developments speak favorably as to Mr. Keenan’s rehabilitation. The offender expressed regret and remorse [ 42 ] Mr. Keenan apologized to Ms. Davies when he testified at the sentencing hearing and expressed regret and remorse. Although this mind frame contrasts with the denigrating attitude he showed toward the victim during his testimony at trial, the Court nevertheless accepts it as genuine.

Many of his friends and coworkers state in their reference letters how he was deeply distressed and remorseful about the events. General deterrence can be accomplished by imposing strict conditions in the probation order [ 43 ] General deterrence is not achieved exclusively through the imposition of a criminal record. A well-informed observer will acknowledge that strict conditions in a probation order, including a sizeable donation to charity, can constitute an appropriate and measured response to the particular circumstances in the present case.

It is in society’s best interest that the offender continue to be an asset [ 44 ] It is not the Court’s role to determine how Mr. Keenan can best continue to be an asset to society. A disciplinary process will determine what impact, if any, the physical and verbal violence he displayed toward the victim on December 14, 2017, should have on his career with the Ottawa Police Service. This process has its own considerations and, in deciding to order a discharge, I am not expressing an opinion as to its desirable outcome. [ 45 ] But Mr.

Keenan has recently completed a university program in criminology and is pursuing a degree in psychology. These are fields of work where a criminal record can be a handicap. Thus, a discharge would not be contrary to society’s interest, as a criminal record would run the risk of impairing Mr. Keenan’s efforts to increase his education, broaden his interests and diversify his opportunities for gainful employment. CONCLUSION [ 46 ] I come to the conclusion that it is in Mr. Keenan’s best interest, and not contrary to the public interest, to direct a conditional discharge with two years of probation.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT ORDERS that the offender be discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order for a period of twenty-four (24) months; ORDERS the offender to abide by the following conditions in the probation: - Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; - Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; - Notify the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address or promptly notify the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation; - Abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Diane Davies; - Abstain from being in her physical presence; - Abstain from being at her home or place of work; - Report to a probation officer within two working days of the coming into force of the probation order and thereafter, when required and in the manner directed by the probation officer, for a period of twelve (12) months; - If recommended by your probation officer, continue your therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder and provide proof thereof to the probation officer; - If recommended by your probation officer, engage in a therapy for anger management, as directed; - Pay a $2,500 donation to the “Donne-toi une chance” charity organization within six (6) months, through the Court office. __________________________________ ANOUK DESAULNIERS J.C.Q.

Mtre Marie-Philippe Guimond-Methe Criminal and penal prosecutor Mtre Solomon Friedman Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: August 21, 2020