2020 QCCQ 8353, 2020 QCCQ 8353

R. c. Kritik 2020 QCCQ 8353 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF ABITIBI LOCALITY OF KUUJJUAQ « Criminal and penal division » N° : 635-01-014601-166 DATE : December 10, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHEVALIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Plaintiff v.

JOE KRITIK Accused ______________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with an application by the Crown to have Mr. Joe Kritik designated as a dangerous offender. BACKGROUND [ 2 ] Joe Kritik, an Inuk now 33 years old, was found guilty, on December 13, 2016, of having sexually assaulted P.P. on July 11, 2016.

The Crown then brought an application seeking accused's designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of a sentence of indeterminate detention, according to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] On April 4, 2018, accused was declared a dangerous offender and received a sentence of indeterminate detention. [ 4 ] On August 5, 2019, the Québec Court of Appeal set aside the declaration of dangerous offender and the sentence, ordered a complete psychiatric assessment of the accused as well as a new hearing before a different judge « together with any new evidence that might flow therefrom » [1] .

THE LAW The Criminal Code [ 5 ] After an assessment report has been prepared, as requested by the Crown, and filed, the Criminal Code prescribes that the court shall find the offender a dangerous offender if it is satisfied that the offence for which he has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence (sexual assault is one) and the offender, by his conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his sexual impulses [2] . [ 6 ] When an offender is found to be a dangerous offender, the court may impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, or impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least two years for the offence for which the offender has been convicted and order that the offender be subject to a long-term supervision for a period not exceeding 10 years, or impose a sentence for the offence which has been committed [3] . [ 7 ] If the court does not find the offender to be a dangerous offender, it may treat the application of the Crown as an application to find the offender a long-term offender and it may either find the offender to be a long-term offender or hold another hearing for that purpose, or impose a sentence for the offence which was committed [4] .

The case law [ 8 ] The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the assessment of dangerousness based on sexual conduct required « in addition to evidence of a pattern of past conduct, an independent assessment of future risk » [5] .

In conclusion, it said: « In sum, a finding of dangerousness has always required that the Crown demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and the intractability of the violent pattern of conduct. A prospective assessment of dangerousness ensures that only offenders who pose a tremendous future risk are designated as dangerous and face the possibility of being sentenced to indeterminate detention.

This necessarily involves the consideration of future treatment prospects ». [6] [ 9 ] A sentencing principle that governs courts is that all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done must be considered by a sentencing judge, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders [7] . [ 10 ] Speaking of Aboriginal offenders, the Supreme Court of Canada stated : When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection ( Gladue , at para. 66 ).

Judges may take judicial notice of the broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, but additional case-specific information will have to come from counsel and from the pre-sentence report ( Gladue , at paras. 83-84 ). [8] [ 11 ] The Supreme Court of Canada added, concerning the systemic and background factors : To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and, of course, higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples. [9] [ 12 ] The designation of an offender as dangerous or long-term offender is part of the Criminal Code sentencing regime of which s. 718.2 (

e) forms a part. [10] Even though the moral blameworthiness has little or no impact on the need for incarceration to protect the public, for a court dealing with a violent Aboriginal offender subject to a dangerous or long-term offender application, culturally sensitive programming and supports may make a difference to the offender's rehabilitation and management, within the community, of his risk to reoffend.

It is therefore mandatory for a sentencing judge to take into account the Gladue considerations. [11] [ 13 ] Speaking of blameworthiness or moral culpability, the Québec Court of Appeal repeated that: An offender's moral culpability varies according to the harm intended or the degree of recklessness or wilful blindness. The greater the harm, the greater the offender's moral culpability. […] moral culpability encompasses a series of factors, including those related to the offender's personality, and the consideration of these factors should not be limited to the period during which the offence was committed.

As noted by authors Parent and Desrosiers, [TRANSLATION] « it is the criminal's entire personality which is scrutinized and opened to judicial analysis ». [12] POSITION OF THE PARTIES The Crown's position [ 14 ] The Crown considers that accused should still be designated as a dangerous offender, and relies on the reports [13] and on the testimonies of Ms. Tiziana Costi. She is an experienced expert in legal psychology who made Mr. Kritik's assessment in 2017.

She met him for that purpose on seven occasions for a total of eight hours and a half and performed with him different tests with tools usually used to perform that kind of assessment. She met him again in 2020 twice by videoconference for a total of two hours and forty-five minutes to update her previous report. [ 15 ] Ms.

Costi also testified on December 18, 2017, [14] and on October 14, 2020, to give informative comments on her reports. [ 16 ] The Crown also relies on accused's numerous previous convictions, among which six for a sexual offence [15] ; on different reports, assessments, recommendations, decisions of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) made while accused was serving a sentence of 39 months (before taking into account the time spent in preventive custody) imposed in 2012 [16] , showing that he was repeatedly denied being released on parole because he was considered to be at high risk of reoffending; on the reasons invoked by the CSC to ask for a recognizance signed by accused, according to s. 810.2, after he served until the end the 2012 sentence [17] ; on reports prepared by the detention centre of Amos when he was in preventive custody in the present file in 2016 [18] ; on the police reports for each sexual offence committed by accused in the past and for which he was convicted [19] ; on different documents prepared by the CSC when accused started to serve his indeterminate sentence of detention in 2018 [20] ; on documents from the detention centre of Amos where accused was detained, either serving a sentence or being in preventive custody, from 2008 to 2020, mainly for disciplinary breaches [21] . [ 17 ] Crown counsel considers that if the evidence does not satisfy the Court that accused deserves to be designated as a dangerous offender, he should at least be found to be a long-term offender, according to s. 753 (5) (a).

Defence's position [ 18 ] For defence counsel, accused should not be designated as a dangerous offender or even a long-term offender and should receive the sentence for the offence for which he was convicted, according to s. 753 (5) (b).

[ 19 ] The evidence relied upon by the defence is a Gladue Report dated November 3, 2017, written by Ms. Eliane Santschi [22] and a Complementary Report by the same author, submitted on April 30, 2019 [23] , as well as Ms. Santschi's testimony given on January 8, 2018 [24] . Accused testified on the same date and the transcript of his testimony is also filed as exhibit [25] . [ 20 ] As ordered by the Québec Court of Appeal [26] , a complete psychiatric assessment of accused was made by Dr. Louis Morissette and his report was adduced as evidence for the defence [27] . Dr.

Morissette found no evidence of any psychotic trouble and concluded that Mr. Kritik's most important risk factor resided in his alcohol consumption. [ 21 ] Mr. Martin Scott is the Coordinator for the Justice Committee of Aupaluk where he resides. He supervises Ms. Elena Berthe's work, who is his representative in Tasiujaq where accused comes from and who will be able to help him when he comes back in the community. Mr. Kritik contacted Mr.

Scott in the fall of 2019, and more regularly since February 2020, expressing his desire to apologize to his victims for the harm done, being able to express emotions, acknowledging that he needs help and affirming his will to work on his issues. [ 22 ] Dr. R. Karl Hanson was also heard as a witness for the defence and his report was filed [28] . Dr. Hanson is an expert in Risk Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offenders and has developed many of the tools used by experts or technicians to assess the likelihood of sexual offenders to reoffend, tools used by Ms.

Costi. [ 23 ] His mandate was to give an opinion on "the validation of tools for the evaluation of risk and the validation of the tools specifically utilized in the evaluation of Mr. Kritik" by Ms. Costi. [ 24 ] His conclusion was that these assessment tools are usually reliable for the population in general, but none of them, used by Ms. Costi, has been validated specifically with individuals of Inuit heritage and that consequently caution was warranted when interpreting the results of the tools used by Ms. Costi [29] . [ 25 ] An

article on Risk Assessment of Indigenous Offenders also concludes that the validity of the tools used to assess their risk of reoffending is lower than the validity of the same tools when assessing the risk of non-Indigenous offenders [30] . [ 26 ] Defence counsel also insists on the acknowledgment by Ms. Costi that she found positive changes in accused between 2017 and 2020. He realizes now that he needs help and he even managed to get some when he was in the penitentiary in 2018, which shows that he is no more intractable as he seemed to be in 2017.

ANALYSIS The designation stage [ 27 ] Accused, in committing the present offence, his seventh sexual offence in less than eleven years, clearly « has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses ». [ 28 ] In 2017, Ms. Costi was fully aware that she was assessing an Inuit man but concluded that the cultural aspect that had to be taken into account only played a minor role [31] . [ 29 ] Because Mr.

Kritik was not respecting his commitments, did not think about the consequences of his actions on others, did not show empathy for his victims, did not admit the different issues he had to work on or lacked the necessary motivation to work on them, did not acknowledge he needed a therapy for his sexual deviancy, Ms.

Costi then concluded that he represented a risk that could not be managed in the community. [ 30 ] In 2020, he is able to identify different issues he has to work on : his alcohol consumption, his sexual demeanour, his anger management, and he says that he needs help for that, contrary to the attitude he had in 2017. [ 31 ] When he was in the penitentiary, in 2018, he attended different programs that helped him, but after his appeal was granted, he came back to a provincial facility where no programs were available, even though he asked for them. [ 32 ] Ms.

Costi's conclusion is that despite the positive changes she noted, the risk of recidivism represented by Mr. Kritik cannot be managed in the society for the time being. Accused will have to undertake some programs to be able to cope with his problems. [ 33 ] Ms. Costi refers in her testimony to the Tupik Program offered by the CSC for Inuit sex offenders, which would be very beneficial to the accused. [ 34 ] While detained in Amos, awaiting his new hearing on the Crown's application, Mr. Kritik contacted Mr.

Martin Scott who is a great comfort to him and is regularly in contact with him, almost every week, and who is ready to help him once he comes back in the community. Mr. Scott stated however that accused would be welcome in his community after successfully completing different programs in a penitentiary, and then having access to outside programs. [ 35 ] On June 15, 2020, Dr. Morissette's diagnosis is that Mr. Kritik does not show any sign of psychotic disorder but suffers from paraphilia (sexual deviancy) and abusive alcohol consumption disorder [32] . [ 36 ] In the community, according to Dr.

Morissette, accused most important risk factor is his alcohol intake. He should not consume any alcoholic beverage and should undergo a lengthy treatment in a rehabilitation centre for Inuit people where he could also get support to cope with the lifelong stressful and emotional events he went through. [ 37 ] Dr. Morissette suggests different medications to reduce accused deviant sexual pulsions and libido, and to help him to remain sober once he is back in his community. Accused should then be submitted to a strict follow-up for his alcohol consumption and for the

taking of the medication prescribed. [ 38 ] As Dr. Morissette noted, however, up to now, when accused was in the community, it was very difficult for him to remain sober for a significant period of time. But Mr. Kritik told Dr.

Morissette, and said under oath when he testified in front of the court, that when he was released after his last sentence, in the beginning of 2015, he did not consume alcohol until June 2016, until after his sister committed suicide, because he was in pain. [ 39 ] The Court is convinced that without proper treatment, if accused is released, despite the goodwill he expresses, he, « by his conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his sexual impulses ». [ 40 ] For the Court to find that accused is a dangerous offender, not only must it be demonstrated that there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, which has been proven, the intractability of the violent pattern of conduct must also be demonstrated [33] . [ 41 ] The Supreme Court of Canada defined « intractable conduct as meaning a behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount ». [34] [ 42 ] Looking now at the existence of future treatment prospects, the evidence adduced at the new hearing shows that accused is now open to attend programs aimed at helping him to overcome his incapacity to control, among others, his alcohol consumption, his sexual impulses, his anger management.

It shows as well that those programs exist and that they can be effective. [ 43 ] Accused is, furthermore, encouraged by Mr. Scott to sustain his efforts to go through whatever program is needed before his community is ready to welcome him without fear. Mr.

Kritik's most eager desire is to be back in his community, which reassures the Court that he will put the necessary efforts to attain his goal. [ 44 ] Accused's desire to change his life and attend whatever program is needed shows that he does not seem to make a vain wish, especially when we see that when he was in the penitentiary he did in fact attend some programs that were useful for him, and when he came back to a provincial facility, he asked to be given the chance to attend some programs that were unfortunately not available since he was awaiting a sentence. [ 45 ] The Court cannot therefore consider that accused's past violent conduct is intractable, and cannot find consequently that Mr.

Kritik should be designated a dangerous offender. The sentencing stage [ 46 ] Should he be designated as a long-term offender, as asked by the Crown in the event the Court would not designate accused a dangerous offender, or should he simply receive the sentence that he deserves for the offence for which he was convicted [35] , as requested by defence counsel? [ 47 ] Parliament has enacted a few sentencing principles in the Criminal Code .

The principle of proportionality [ 48 ] One of them is that « a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender ». [36] Accused, for the crime he committed, is liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. [ 49 ] In assessing his responsibility for the sexual assault for which he was convicted, the Court has to consider all factors linked to accused's personality in order to determine his moral blameworthiness [37] , and careful attention must be given to the Gladue Report [38] and to its complementary report [39] for that assessment. [ 50 ] Looking at accused's personal factors for that determination, the Court will not list the different abuses and traumas sustained by Mr.

Kritik throughout his life that are documented in the Gladue Report, in order not to trigger intense emotions for him by disclosing them in public, but it takes them all into consideration.

It also takes into consideration the systemic and historic factors that negatively affected Inuit communities in general and Tasiujaq in particular throughout the years, as described in the Gladue Report. [ 51 ] On account of the different personal factors and the historic and systemic factors mentioned in the Gladue Report, accused's personality has certainly been impacted in a way that it may explain why he is in front of the Court, and these factors affect his moral blameworthiness by reducing it. [ 52 ] But they do not excuse the previous repeated sexual crimes (6) and the other offences (26) committed by accused in less than 11 years while he was under conditions for almost all of them. [ 53 ] They made him become the man he was in 2016, to wit someone who could not control himself and who did not respect human beings, court orders and his own undertakings. [ 54 ] Born in 1987, he was convicted for having committed : • on November 5, 2005, a sexual assault, a forcible confinement and a criminal harassment; • on February 2, 2006, a sexual assault and two breaches of an undertaking;

• on April 23, 2007, a sexual assault causing bodily harm and a forcible confinement; • on February 12, 2008, a failure to attend court; • on March 2008, indecent acts; • on April 6, 2009, a sexual interference, a forcible confinement and two breaches of probation; • on January 25, 2010, a breach of probation; • on May 10, 2010, a breach of probation; • on July 25, 2010, a mischief and two breaches of probation; • on September 10, 2010, an assault; • on September 12, 2010, a mischief and two breaches of probation; • on December 9, 2010,an assault; • on February 2, 2011, an obstruction of justice; • on March 31, 2011, two assaults and an utterance of threats; • on September 19, 2011,a sexual assault; • on March 4, 2012, an assault; • on May 29, 2016, a mischief and a breach of recognizance; • on July 7, 2016, a sexual assault and a mischief. [ 55 ] Despite a reduced moral blameworthiness, his overall responsibility for the sexual assault he committed is very high.

It is not because he has no recollection of what he did, on account of his intoxication, that his responsibility is lessened. He has always given the excuse that if he committed offences, it was on account of his alcohol consumption, but he has done nothing through the years to cope with that issue. And at least one of his sexual offences was committed while he was detained, therefore the excuse of alcohol cannot stand for that one. It shows that his sexual impulses disorder is deeply rooted.

The principle of individualization [ 56 ] Another sentencing principle enacted in the Criminal Code is that « a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender ». [40] [ 57 ] Among the mitigating factors is the fact that accused expresses now remorse for the harm done to his victim and would like to apologize.

The positive evolution noted since he was detained in this file is another one : he now acknowledges that he has serious problems to work on, and declares to be willing to do so. [ 58 ] The aggravating factors are numerous and outweigh the mitigating ones. The number of previous convictions is one. The fact that, when he committed the sexual assault, he was bound by different conditions of a recognizance that had been asked by the CSC according to s. 810.2, is another one.

The fact that he was then awaiting a trial for a breach of that recognizance and for a mischief committed a month and a half earlier is another one. [41] The fact that he was aware of the consequences that abusive alcohol consumption had on him and that he was again intoxicated to such a point that he has no recollection of what he did is an aggravating factor. [42] The risk of recidivism which is high without proper treatment is another one.

The restorative justice principle All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [43] [ 59 ] The Supreme Court of Canada held that this

section of the Criminal Code « is a remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem of over-representation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing ». [44] [ 60 ] The Gladue Report which gave very important information about Mr.

Kritik and Nunavik was « presented to the Court as a complementary option building towards rehabilitation, restoration and healing », but acknowledged the fact that before being released, accused had to attend programs related to alcohol and drug addiction, sexual deviancy and healthy relationships [45] . [ 61 ] The Supreme Court of Canada also said that « s. 718.2 (

e) should not be taken as requiring an automatic reduction of sentence, or a remission of a warranted period of incarceration, simply because the offender is aboriginal. […] It may not always mean a lower sentence for an aboriginal offender. The sentence imposed will depend on all the factors which must be taken into account in each individual case ». [46]

[ 62 ] This was reaffirmed by the Québec Court of Appeal in 2018. [47] [ 63 ] The Supreme Court of Canada said, in 2000, following its Gladue decision that « as a result, it will generally be the case, as a practical matter , that particularly violent and serious offences will result in imprisonment for aboriginal offenders as often as for non- aboriginal offenders […] Accordingly, I conclude that it was open to the trial judge to give primacy to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in this case on the basis that the crime involved was a serious one ». [48] The sentencing objectives The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute […] to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [49] [ 64 ] For that purpose, the objectives that a sentence must then try to attend are one or many of the following : denounce the unlawful conduct and the harm done; deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; separate offenders from society when necessary; assist in rehabilitating offenders; provide reparation for harm done; promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done. [ 65 ] The objectives of denunciation and deterrence are here paramount considering the seriousness of the offence, the number of previous convictions and the vulnerability of the victim, even though accused is an Inuk man. [ 66 ] The Québec Court of Appeal recently reminded us that : […] Gladue and Ipeelee do not suggest that « as a general practice, aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a manner which gives greatest weight to the principle of restorative justice, and less weight to goals such as deterrence, denunciation, and separation.

There are some serious offences and some offenders for which and for whom the aforementioned goals of deterrence, denunciation and separation remain fundamentally relevant ». [50] [ 67 ] The objective of separating accused from society is necessary.

When the numerous sentences of imprisonment in the past did not succeed in achieving the desired deterrent objective, it is then important to separate accused from society, says the Québec Court of Appeal. [51] [ 68 ] This objective is also necessary to ensure that accused has the opportunity to have access to different programs he needs and that are available in a penitentiary in order to limit his risk of recidivism and to protect society when he will be going back to his community. This is, moreover, the wish expressed in the Gladue Report and by Mr. Martin Scott when he testified and spoke to accused.

And it is Ms. Costi's firm opinion. [ 69 ] The Court needs to be certain that the programs necessary to reduce significantly the risk of recidivism will be officially approved and recognized programs, given by competent counsellors, in a structured environment making sure that accused participate actively before being released in the community, with the tools to maintain sobriety, control over his sexual pulsions, anger management and healthy relationships.

Once back in the community accused will then have access to traditional counsellors and hopefully be able to continue working on his issues and heal from his past traumas. [ 70 ] The objective of assisting in rehabilitating accused must not be ignored, despite his previous convictions, if we believe that he really wants to change his life and get the necessary help to succeed. [ 71 ] The objective of repairing the harm done cannot be achieved and the objective of promoting a sense of responsibility in accused seems to have already been reached.

The appropriate sentence [ 72 ] On account of the primacy that has to be given to the objectives of denunciation, of deterrence and of separation, on account of the overwhelming weight of the aggravating factors, on account of the necessity to protect society from accused if he has not been treated, which is the fundamental purpose of sentencing, on account of the seriousness of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment has to be imposed and less weight must be given to the principle of restorative justice. [ 73 ] Relying on this well recognized sentencing principle by the Québec Court of Appeal [52] , the Honourable Renée Lemoine wrote that « the principle of gradation of sentences justifies imposing a more severe sentence when the offender has a previous convictions for similar offences.

It is subject, however, to the principle of proportionality ». [53] [ 74 ] Accused last sentence for a sexual assault was an imprisonment of 39 months. If it had had to impose the sentence in this file in 2018 without being presented an application to have Mr. Kritik designated as a dangerous offender, the Court would not have hesitated to sentence him to the maximum term of imprisonment, to wit 10 years. [ 75 ] As the Supreme Court of Canada said, « There is still a place in criminal law for maximum sentences in appropriate circumstances.

Thus, the maximum sentence cannot be reserved for the abstract case of the worst crime committed in the worst circumstances ». [54] [ 76 ] The circumstances were, in 2018, appropriate enough to have the sentencing judge consider that accused had to be designated a dangerous offender. The Québec Court of Appeal set that decision aside because it was based on an incomplete record, a motion made by the defence to have a complete psychiatric assessment of Mr. Kritik performed having then been refused. [55]

[ 77 ] That assessment has now been performed [56] and Dr. Morissette's conclusions concur with the conclusions of Ms. Costi in 2017 and 2020 that accused suffers from paraphilia, abusive alcohol consumption disorder and that he presents antisocial traits. [ 78 ] The Court takes however into consideration Mr.

Kritik's positive evolution during the last three years and considers that accused does not deserve any more a sentence of emprisonment for ten years. [ 79 ] A sentence of 97 months of imprisonment reflects adequately the sentencing objectives that must here be prioritized, respects the different sentencing principles that apply here, will assist accused in his rehabilitation and assure the protection of society when he will be released by giving him the opportunity to work actively on his issues prior to his release. [ 80 ] He has been in preventive custody (1135 days, but considered to be 1703 days, according to s. 719 (3.1) and served part of the sentence that had been imposed in 2018 (488 days), for what must be considered a total of 73 months.

This period of time has to be deducted from the 97 months of the sentence he deserves. [ 81 ] He will then have to spend 24 more months in detention and the Court is urging CSC to facilitate access by accused to the different programs designed to help Inuit inmates to work on their issues. It is particularly important for Mr. Kritik to go through a program for Inuit sexual offenders and to give him the opportunity to attend a program aimed at getting rid of his addiction to alcohol and drugs.

Accused stated under oath that he needed help for that and that he was ready to get that help. [ 82 ] Should that sentence be followed by a long-term supervision order? There is, for the time being, a substantial risk that M. Kritik would reoffend if released now without attending structured and specialized programs to help him cope with his issues.

The possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community must be « reasonable » [57] and not based « on hope and wishful thinking ». [58] [ 83 ] Because the Court is convinced that accused's intention of getting help is genuine, and that while serving his sentence Mr. Kritik will attend the suggested programs, as he did when he started serving the sentence in 2018, it considers that the possibility of control in the community is reasonable because he will have acquired tools to control himself.

Therefore, the Court « may » designate accused as a long-term offender. [ 84 ] But should, instead, that sentence be followed by a probation order? [ 85 ] Both orders have the same objective : the supervision of an accused after his release to make sure that he respects the conditions imposed. [ 86 ] The Court is of the view that a probation order is preferable since it will be easier for a probation officer based in Nunavik to supervise M.

Kritik and to get the cooperation of the different local organizations which will be asked to continue to work with him, when he is back in the community, in order to prevent recidivism. [ 87 ] The Court therefore sentences Mr.

Kritik to a term of imprisonment of two years, starting today, which will be followed by a supervised probation for a period of three years, with the following conditions : - keep the peace and be of good conduct; - report to a probation officer within five working days after his release and thereafter whenever required and in the manner required; - notify in advance the probation officer of any change of name or address and promptly notify him of any change of occupation; - comply with the instructions given by the probation officer; - remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside is given by the probation officer; - abstain from communicating with the victim or from going to her residence or place of work, except if she agrees to receive accused's apologies once the probation officer has verified with her if she accepts; - leave any public or private place where the victim could be; - meet with the social services of his community within five days after his return in the community, have a follow-up with them as long as deemed necessary by them, and bring to the probation officer proof of his compliance; - comply with the instructions given by Social Services; - meet with a representative of the Justice Committee within three working days after his return in his community and thereafter whenever required by them; - meet with a physician if and when required to do so and comply with his instructions; - abstain from the consumption of any intoxicating substance except in accordance with a valid medical prescription; - take any prescribed medication as prescribed. [ 88 ] The Court is making the order prescribed by s. 109 (1) (a), prohibiting accused from possessing any firearm, ammunition, explosive substance, cross-bow and other prohibited or restrictive weapons for a period of ten years since no notice to seek a greater punishment was filed .

The exception provided by s. 113 (1) (

a) will apply.

[ 89 ] The offence committed by Mr. Kritik being a « super primary » offence, the Court orders, according to s. 487.051 (1), the taking of bodily substances from accused for DNA analysis, substances which will have to be taken within 60 days. [ 90 ] The Court orders accused, according to s. 490.012 (1), to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life. __________________________________ PAUL CHEVALIER, J.C.Q. Me Annie Sills-Massicotte For the Crown Me Cristine Renaud Me Louis-Nicholas Coupal For the accused Dates of hearing : September, 14-15-16, 2020