r v. L. P., 2022 QCCQ 6449

R. c. L.P. 2022 QCCQ 6449 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Criminel and Penal Division Nos: 500-01-180644-186 500-01-217816-211 500-01-197361-196 DATE: August 31, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE COSTOM, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v. L. P.

Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE [ 1 ] In the watershed cases of Gladue [1] and Ipeelee [2] , the Supreme Court of Canada provided clear direction to trial judges as to how to take into account the unique circumstances of aboriginal offenders in fashioning fit sentences. The principles established in those cases must be applied in the case at hand. [ 2 ] Ms. L.

P., a 53-year-old Inuk woman, pleaded guilty [3] to the following offences: - Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b)) (File 500-01-180644-186). - Assault (s. 266(b)) (count 1) and assault of a peace officer in the execution of his duty (s. 270(1)(a)) (count 2) ( File 500-01-217816- 211 ). - Assault causing bodily harm by choking (s. 267(c)) (count 1) and assault causing bodily harm (count 3) (s. 267(b)) (File 500-01- 197361-196). THE FACTS File 500-01-180644-186 [ 3 ] On October 5, 2018, Ms. P. and her coaccused, Ms. Adlook, accosted the victim, Mme Joanne Houle, in a park where they all saw each other regularly.

They were angry with Ms. Houle about something she had allegedly done the previous day. Ms. Adlook began assaulting Ms. Houle and Ms. P. intervened, kicking and hitting her while she was on the ground. Someone intervened to stop the fight and Ms. P. ran away. [ 4 ] Ms. Houle suffered a fractured nose and a hematoma on her right eye. She had bruises, scratches as well as blood and swelling all over her face [4] . [ 5 ] Ms. Houle and Ms. P. were friends before the incident and have resumed their friendship. Ms. Houle did not provide a victim impact statement.

At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor advised the Court that Ms. Houle has forgiven Ms. P.. File 500-01-217816-211 [ 6 ] On December 31, 2018, Ms. P. attended a party at a community centre in her hometown of [Municipality A]. She was highly intoxicated and attacked the victim in the first count, Mr. Félix Oliver. She was trying to hit him all over his body. Mr. Oliver called the police and Ms. P . was taken to the police station. As the officers were putting her into her cell, she tried to hit Mr. Michael Larose, the peace officer who is the victim in the second count.

Earlier in the intervention, she had also apparently made a sign with her right hand as if she were shooting him [5] .

File 500-01-197361-196 [ 7 ] On October 31, 2019, Ms. P. was in the isolation wing of a hospital, being treated for tuberculosis. The victim, a 68-year-old woman named Jocelyne Truchon, was visiting another patient. [ 8 ] Ms. P. believed that Ms. Truchon was laughing at her. She choked her from behind with her arm and punched her in the face. Ms. Truchon was dizzy and vomited. She had a bump on her head the size of a golf ball. Her glasses were broken. [ 9 ] At the time of the events, Ms. P. was receiving medication for tuberculosis as well as for depression.

She was trying to reduce the dosage of the pills being taken for the depression. She was also drinking, creating a bad cocktail of alcohol and medication. [ 10 ] The Court did not receive a victim impact statement from Ms. Truchon. THE ACCUSED [ 11 ] The Court was provided with extensive information about Ms. P. in order to assist it in imposing the appropriate sentence. This includes a Gladue report as well as a number of other documents pertaining to Ms. P.’s efforts at rehabilitation in recent years. Her extensive criminal record was also deposited [6] . [ 12 ] Ms.

P.’s first conviction dates back to 1991 and since then she has appeared before the Courts regularly. Her record includes one conviction for drug trafficking (in 1991), 3 for impaired driving (in 2001 and 2002) and approximately 20 convictions for failure to respect release conditions or the conditions of a probation (between 1991 and 2018). The record also contains 15 entries for crimes of violence such as assault, armed assault, assaulting a peace officer and uttering threats. She has prior convictions for theft, extortion and one for breaking and entering.

She received custodial sentences on numerous occasions, with her longest sentence being a period of imprisonment of 8 months in 2008. Ms. P.’s most recent term of imprisonment was in 2016 when she received a sentence of 30 days for breach of probation. The Gladue Report and other information [ 13 ] A Gladue report was prepared by Ms. Danielle Beaulieu, of the First Peoples Justice Center of Montreal. She met with Ms. P. for eight hours and also spoke with a number of the people in her entourage. She consulted documents in relation to the files before the Court, Ms.

P.’s criminal record as well as a number of scholarly documents in relation to Indigenous people and Inuit people more specifically [7] . [ 14 ] The report was thorough and provided the Court with much information about Ms. P.’s background as well as her plans for the future. It also set out some of the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a

part in bringing Ms. P. before the Courts, and made a number of recommendations as to alternatives to incarceration which the Court may wish to consider in its sentencing decision. This information was extremely helpful and is essential to any Court called upon to sentence an indigenous offender [8] . Personal and family history [ 15 ] Ms. P. was born in Town A but was adopted at birth and brought up by adoptive parents in [Municipality A].

The Gladue report explains that the process of informal adoption is frequent amongst the Inuit and is in line with the way they understand family and define the concept of filiation [9] . Ms. P.’s adoptive parents were relatives of her biological parents. [ 16 ] Ms. P. describes her adoptive parents as being kind and taking care of her. However, she was witness to a lot of alcohol use in the home and violence in the community. [ 17 ] Ms. P.’s family moved around with the seasons, always returning to [Municipality A] as a home base.

She remembers loving nature and the four seasons, and fondly recalls experiencing the beauty and uniqueness of different places in the north. [ 18 ] At approximately three years of age, Ms. P. was sexually abused. One day when her father returned home from a hunting trip, she wasn’t with the rest of the family and they went looking for her. They found her as well as well as the offender, a worker from outside the community. Given her age, Ms. P. didn’t really understand the situation, but as a young adult she felt that something was wrong with her.

Finally, at age 27, she asked her adoptive mother if something had happened to her when she was young and her mother told her about the sexual assault. [ 19 ] At age 15, Ms. P. was sexually assaulted by her oldest adopted brother. She told her adoptive parents who said that they would talk to him about it, but nothing ever came of it. [ 20 ] At age 16, she was raped by her brother-in-law, the husband of her oldest sister. Her sister blamed her. [ 21 ] Ms. P. describes feeling betrayed by the reactions of those around her following the sexual assaults.

She doesn’t feel that she was supported and stated to the author of the Gladue report “ I hate them for what they’ve done to me, I’ve received violence from them, so I’m violent to myself ” [10] . [ 22 ] There were many suicides of loved ones in Ms. P.’s family, so many that she “ couldn’t keep track ” [11] . She mentions that communities don’t get help and meaningful support up north. For this reason, she wants to change her life and be in a position to help young Inuit. [ 23 ] Ms. P. moved south to complete her high school education. She met a man, A. B., and they began a relationship which lasted 18 years.

She started a degree in counselling in CEGEP with the goal of getting an education that would enable her to help others. She gave up school in the mid-90s after she and Mr. B. had two children. She eventually completed a certificate in addictions counselling through the University of Moncton.

[ 24 ] Ms. P. recalls visiting her home community with her children a few times when they were young, especially to visit their grandmother, her adoptive mother. Her sons are now 27 and 25. [ 25 ] In the early 2000s, youth protection became involved in Ms. P.’s family life. Her parental rights were taken away and the two boys stayed with their father. She describes a situation of conjugal violence where both she and Mr. B. were aggressive to each other. In 2003, they separated and she eventually returned (temporarily) to [Municipality A]. [ 26 ] In December 2005, Ms.

P.’s youngest adopted brother shot her and was ultimately convicted of attempted murder. She explains that ever since the shooting she has never felt the same. Following the incident, she did not have access to any victim support services and did not consult a professional about the trauma she endured. To this day, she experiences nightmares and flashbacks. [ 27 ] After the shooting, Ms. P. believes that her life “ went upside down ” [12] . The Gladue report refers to a long period of instability in Montréal. She was homeless, had no job and had lost access to her children. [ 28 ] In approximately 2007, Ms.

P. was able to get an apartment arranged through an Inuit-specific housing program for women. However, she was ultimately unable to return to the apartment due to a conflict with a neighbour, and ended up back on the streets. [ 29 ] At the time of the commission of the offences which are before this Court, she was experiencing homelessness. History of consumption of alcohol, drugs and other substances [ 30 ] Ms. P. began consuming alcohol at approximately age 15, and this consumption became heavier following the two incidents whereby she was a victim of sexual assault at the hands of family members.

As a teenager, she occasionally smoked marijuana with her friends. Her alcohol use became more problematic in her early 20s when she began drinking larger quantities and more frequently. This continued throughout her life. [ 31 ] Ms. P. also used drugs in adulthood, taking Ativan and sleeping pills every day. However, about two years ago, she stopped using all narcotics. She still smokes marijuana once in a while. [ 32 ] Ms. P. participated in a 6-month treatment program in 2001.

More recently, from November 2 to November 12, 2020, she attended an in-patient detox program at the Centre de réadapation en dépendance de Montréal [13] . The letter deposited with respect to her participation in this therapy describes her as open-minded to change, possessing a good capacity for introspection, motivated and as a positive presence within the group. [ 33 ] Ms. P. did an additional inpatient therapy for her drug and alcohol addictions between November 12, 2020 and January 8, 2021. She chose to leave before the end of the program because she did not feel it was addressing her needs.

She has applied and is on a wait list to participate in a six week inpatient program at Isuarsivik Recovery Center in Kuujjuaq [14] . This program is described in the Gladue report as follows: “Isuarsivik offers a six week Inpatient Individual Program where guests get to attend a variety of healing workshops and activities, eat healthy food and sleep in a safe dormitory environment. The center has been serving Inuit communities for 25 years, their mission is to deliver holistic and culturally sensitive healing programs for Nunavikmmiut, to enhance their inner strength and wellbeing.” [15] [ 34 ] Ms.

P. understands the importance of controlling her alcohol consumption and is committed to doing so. At the sentencing hearing, she testified that she is drinking much less than she used to. When she drinks she does so at home or at friends’ houses as opposed to in public places, maybe twice a week. [ 35 ] Ms. P. has also been consulting a psychotherapist since August 2018. The focus of the therapy is to “help her cope with her past traumas, reduce her dependency on substance abuse, and improve her emotional regulation strategies”.

Her psychotherapist notes that she is motivated to lead a “healthy and adaptive lifestyle” and has made progress but “continues to be burdened by emotional traumas and their consequences” [16] . Ms. P. plans to continue to work with her psychotherapist. Ms. P.’s life today [ 36 ] Ms. P. has many friends and family members in Montréal. She is very close to her son E. who was involved in an accident which left him paralyzed and in a wheelchair. She sees him regularly and tries to help him by bringing him groceries, doing his laundry and cooking and cleaning for him. [ 37 ] In 2009, she met F.

T. with whom she had a relationship for seven years. They are still close today. He spoke with the author of the Gladue report and commented on the various positive changes he has seen in Ms. P. in recent years. [ 38 ] In her quest to turn her life around, Ms. P. has availed herself of a number of resources. Sonya Gagnier, a native courtworker, accompanied her throughout these court proceedings. Ms.

P. also accesses support services at the First Peoples Justice Center of Montreal (FPJCM), a community organization that offers “support services, guidance and follow-up to indigenous people involved in the justice and correctional systems”. It also provides “culturally appropriate programming in partnership with other organizations in the city of Montreal” [17] . [ 39 ] Ms. P. attends the Native Friendship Centre approximately once a week where she pursues a number of activities including sewing groups where she makes traditional Inuit mittens known as pualuk .

This is part of the process of cultural reconnection [18] . Ms. P. testified that these activities provide an opportunity to socialize, in a sober environment, off the streets. Her presence in the group is

described in a positive manner, as fostering “strong healthy relationships with other Inuit community members without substance use being involved” [19] . [ 40 ] Ms. P. has also been meeting with a case worker at the FPJCM for individual follow-ups focused on her wellness since January 14, 2022. Her caseworker describes her progress as “impressive”, and notes that she is “engaged with advancing her goals” [20] . [ 41 ] Of particular significance is Ms. P.’s current living arrangements. At the time of the commission of the offences, Ms. P. was homeless and “in survival mode” [21] . She was suicidal.

As of September 2021, after many years of instability and homelessness, she found an apartment through the Projets Autochtones du Québec (PAQ), in partnership with Projet Logement Montréal (PLM). Ms. P. feels that she is finally sleeping well in a safe space. She says it’s the best apartment that she has ever been in [22] . [ 42 ] Both the PAQ and the PLM provide follow-up and will continue to support Ms. P. in her housing as well as her wellness. According to her caseworker at the PLM, Ms. P. is actively involved in her follow-up and attends all of her bimonthly meetings.

She has adopted a healthy lifestyle, both from a physical and psychological perspective. She is committed to her rehabilitation and her reintegration into society [23] . [ 43 ] Ms. P. currently receives social assistance. Her immediate priority is on overcoming her addictions in a definitive way and on her own healing [24] but she hopes to eventually work, helping youth in the Inuit community. Attitude towards the offences [ 44 ] Ms. P. testified that she is “not proud of herself” when she thinks about her violent behaviour and that she regrets it. She says that nobody deserves to be the victim of violence.

She knows that she has had a problem with violence but now understands that violence gets her nowhere. When there is a problem, she just walks away. Gladue considerations [ 45 ] The Gladue report notes that: “The history of L.’s ancestors, the Inuit people of Canada, is filled with governmental measures of assimilation aiming at eradicating Inuit culture, values and heritage for generations.

These measures including the Residential School system, the ‘Sixties Scoop’ , relocation of families and communities to other lands, the slaughter of the Husky dogs, the mistreatment in the management of tuberculosis in Indigenous communities and many other harmful colonial practices have impacted Inuit for generations.” [25] [ 46 ] These practices affected her hometown thereby weakening the culture and increasing social problems up to today. [ 47 ] Many of Ms. P.’s siblings are residential school survivors.

On this point, the report underscores that: “The multigenerational trauma created from these policies of assimilation and in those schools, are well documented by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People as well as by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Both recognize that these policies have had an impact up to this day on Indigenous communities.” [26] [ 48 ] In addition, many Inuit in Ms.

P.’s hometown of [Municipality A] were affected by the massive Husky sled dogs slaughter which occurred in the 50s and 60s: “As a result, the loss of the sled dogs affected the Inuit self-reliance and accelerated their dependency to supplies provided by “qallunaat” (white man) […] the dog slaughter is considered by many Inuit elders to have been the assimilation measure that have most impacted Inuit and still affect them today.

Many have shared that as they had no means of transportation and their role as men had been impacted, quite a few turned to alcohol to cope with the loss of their dogs and means of survival” [27] . [ 49 ] These policies have contributed to problems still present today in many First Nations, Inuit and Metis communities such as sexual abuse, suicide, dysfunctional relationships, addiction to drugs and alcohol, violence, low self-esteem, low education and overrepresentation of First nation, Metis and Inuit in the justice and correctional system [28] . [ 50 ] The author of the report explains that while Ms.

P. was not directly targeted by any specific traumatizing or governmental measure of assimilation, she is most likely affected by “multi-generational trauma in addition to being affected by all her personal life trauma” [29] . It is to be recalled that multi-generational trauma is: “[…] collective and cumulative emotional wounding across generations that result from massive cataclysmic events […]. It is a trauma that is held personally and transmitted over generations.

Thus, even family members who have not directly experienced the trauma can feel the effects of the event generations later.” [30] [ 51 ] Furthermore, from an early age, Ms. P. was surrounded with and directly affected by violence, sexual assault, suicide and addiction to drug and alcohol.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [ 52 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender” [31] . [ 53 ] The objectives of sentencing include denunciation, individual and general deterrence, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, providing reparations for harm done and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to the victims or to the community [32] . [ 54 ] Other sentencing principles include the principle that a sentence must take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors

relating to the offence or the offender. The principle of parity implies that similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. The principle of restraint instructs judges that offenders should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. In addition, according to

section 718.2(e): (

e) 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 . (Emphasis added) Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders [ 55 ] In Gladue , the Supreme Court was presented with its first opportunity to interpret

section 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code and in particular the passage which directs Courts to pay “particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders”. [ 56 ] While the fundamental responsibility in all cases is for courts to impose a fit sentence, the Supreme Court held that s. 718.2 (

e) alters the method of analysis which judges must use in determining the nature of a fit sentence for an aboriginal offender [33] .

Section 718.2 (

e) also encourages sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing [34] . [ 57 ] When sentencing an Indigenous offender, the Court must consider the following: (

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. [35] [ 58 ] Courts must also 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” [36] .

These matters provide the necessary context for understanding and evaluating the information about the specific offender who the Court is called upon to sentence [37] . [ 59 ] The Supreme Court in Gladue also underscored that Aboriginal people have different conceptions of sentencing, and place primary emphasis upon the ideals of restorative justice.

In fact, Gladue principles direct sentencing judges to “abandon the presumption that all offenders and all communities share the same values when it comes to sentencing and to recognize that, given these fundamentally different world views, different or alternative sanctions may more effectively achieve the objectives of sentencing in a particular community” [38] . [ 60 ] In Ipeelee , the Court built upon its pronouncements in Gladue and explained that the specific history of aboriginal peoples may also “bear on the culpability of the offender, to the extent that they shed light on his or her level of moral blameworthiness” [39] .

In the words of the Québec Court of Appeal, the consideration of background and systemic factors can be seen as forming “an inherent part of the proportionality principle” [40] . [ 61 ] Furthermore, Ipeelee laid to rest the misconception that an offender must establish a causal link between background factors and the commission of the offences for which he or she is to be sentenced before being entitled to have those matters considered by the sentencing judge.

Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that “it would be extremely difficult for an Aboriginal offender to ever establish a direct causal link between his circumstances and his offending. The interconnections are simply too complex” [41] . That being said, systemic and background factors do need to be tied in some way to the particular offender and offence [42] . THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 62 ] The DPCP suggests that the Court impose a global sentence of 20 months, to be served in the community.

In the view of the DPCP, this sentence strikes the right balance between the deterrence and denunciation required in light of the gravity of the offences and Ms. P.’s extensive criminal record, on the one hand, and her significant efforts toward rehabilitation, on the other, while taking into account her Aboriginal background. [ 63 ] The defence urges the Court to suspend the sentence subject to a three-year probation, with follow-up, as well as conditions requiring Ms. P. to continue to work with the various resources which she has mobilized with a view to a positive future.

The defence also recommends the imposition of 240 hours of community service. APPLICATION [ 64 ] The objective gravity of an offence is gleaned by reference to the maximum penalties prescribed in the Criminal Code . The offences of assault causing bodily harm and assault by choking, when prosecuted by way of indictment as is the case with respect to Ms. P., are punishable by maximum terms of imprisonment of 10 years.

The charges of simple assault and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duties were punishable by a maximum of 18 months at the time of the commission of the offences. [ 65 ] The subjective gravity flows from the specific aggravating and mitigating factors present in any particular case. [ 66 ] In the case at hand, in terms of aggravating factors, the Court takes into account the fact that all of the crimes constitute acts of gratuitous and unprovoked violence. [ 67 ] The Court also considers the serious injuries suffered by Ms. Houle as well as the injuries suffered by Ms. Truchon.

There were two additional victims, Mr. Oliver and peace officer Larose, thus a total of four victims to consider.

[ 68 ] Ms. P.’s lengthy criminal record, and in particular her prior convictions for crimes of violence as well as her failure to respect Court orders are also to be weighed in the sentencing analysis. [ 69 ] In terms of mitigating factors, the Court considers Ms. P.’s guilty pleas [43] and her expressions of remorse which the Court considers sincere. [ 70 ] The Court also takes into account Ms. P.’s background, which must be understood with a view to the unique and devastating history of the mistreatment of Aboriginal people within Canadian society. There is no question that these factors contributed to Ms.

P. being before the Courts over many years including in relation to the cases at hand. [ 71 ] Ms. P. was exposed to drinking and violence at a very young age. She was molested by a stranger at age 3. She began drinking at age 15, and has been abusing alcohol for most of her life. She was sexually assaulted by her oldest brother at age 15 and raped by another family member at age 16. She was victimized by members of the community as they blamed her for the crimes. She experienced the loss of many family members and friends to suicide.

Even after she moved to Montreal she continued to struggle with alcohol and drug use, and there was violence in her home. During her return to her hometown, her youngest brother attempted to murder her. There were no victim services available to her. She returned to Montréal where she experienced homelessness and plunged further into her addictions [44] . [ 72 ] Much of what Ms.

P. experienced throughout her life both in her capacity as victim and then through her own destructive and criminalized behaviour are in line with the well documented consequences of the systemic factors underscored by the Supreme Court in Gladue [45] and Ipeelee [46] . [ 73 ] If we are to understand moral culpability as encompassing not only the harm intended by the offender in committing a particular offence, but the offender’s “entire personality” [47] , there is no question that Ms.

P.’s particular background, as informed by her specific experiences within her community, diminishes her moral culpability. [ 74 ] Ms. P.’s current situation also forms an important part of the analysis. She has stopped using narcotics and has significantly reduced drinking.

She plans on attending the Isuarsivik Treatment Centre as soon as a place becomes available in order to consolidate these positive steps and work on her wellness more generally. [ 75 ] She is working with a psychotherapist who is focusing on both her mental and physical health. [ 76 ] She attends the FPJCM regularly and stays busy in prosocial ways. She receives regular follow-up with respect to her wellness. [ 77 ] She lives in an apartment where she feels comfortable and safe. [ 78 ] She is described as introspective, optimistic, resilient and motivated.

She plays a positive role in the lives of her friends and her son. [ 79 ] The Gladue report notes that until recently, “like many Inuit, L. tried to be self-reliant in her life”.

However, today, “L. feels that she doesn’t need to face everything alone” [48] . [ 80 ] Taking into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as “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” [49] , the Court considers that the sentence to be imposed should be focused on restorative justice. As noted in Gladue : Sentencing judges are among those decision-makers who have the power to influence the treatment of aboriginal offenders in the justice system.

They determine most directly whether an aboriginal offender will go to jail, or whether other sentencing options may be employed which will play perhaps a stronger role in restoring a sense of balance to the offender, victim, and community, and in preventing future crime. [50] [ … ] The existing overemphasis on incarceration in Canada may be partly due to the perception that a restorative approach is a more lenient approach to crime and that imprisonment constitutes the ultimate punishment. Yet in our view a sentence focussed on restorative justice is not necessarily a “lighter” punishment.

Some proponents of restorative justice argue that when it is combined with probationary conditions it may in some circumstances impose a greater burden on the offender than a custodial sentence . [51] (Emphasis added) [ 81 ] The DPCP recognizes the many positive steps taken by Ms. P. in recent years. The conditional sentence which it recommends would include conditions enabling Ms. P. to continue her therapy, her follow-ups at the FPJCM and even her visits to her son.

In this way, the conditional sentence would strike the right balance between restorative principles and denunciation and deterrence. [ 82 ] It is true that a conditional sentence of imprisonment is generally consistent with restorative principles in sentencing. That being said, the structure of even the creative conditional sentence recommended by the prosecution would necessarily contain a significant period of house arrest followed by another timespan during which a curfew would need to be respected. Ms.

P.’s movements would be monitored and she would need to seek permission or at least notify her supervisor prior to engaging in any activities outside her house, during the first phase of her sentence, or outside her curfew, during the second. [ 83 ] The Court is of the view that this type of sentence, for this particular offender, would be inappropriate. The Court refers, in this regard, to the testimony of Mme Beaulieu (the author of the Gladue report) who emphasized the importance of Ms. P. not being isolated and of being in the community.

[ 84 ] It is to be recalled that “the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society” [52] . [ 85 ] At this particular juncture in Ms.

P.’s life, where she has made significant strides in overcoming the scars of her past, and is well on her way towards turning the page on her criminality and becoming a productive member of society, the sentence which will best protect society is a term of probation. [ 86 ] The sentence to be imposed heeds the words of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that a sentence focused on restorative justice is not necessarily a “lighter” punishment.

This is particularly so when one considers Aboriginal conceptions of sentencing [53] . [ 87 ] The Court intends to incorporate into the sentence many of the sentencing options presented in the Gladue report [54] . [ 88 ] The Court adds that as part of the sentence, it intends to impose 240 hours of community service, which is the maximum authorized by law.

The requirement to perform community service can serve as an alternative to a term of imprisonment and achieve some measure of denunciation and deterrence when separation from the community is not required [55] . [ 89 ] Furthermore, the Québec Court of Appeal recently reiterated that the suspension of the passing of a sentence combined with a probation order can meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence [56] . [ 90 ] Finally, the Court notes that Ms. P. served the equivalent of 30 days of pretrial detention in one of the files before the Court.

This is one of the factors which supports the fact that denunciation and deterrence have not been overlooked despite the imposition of a probationary term. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : SUSPENDS the passing of the sentence and imposes a probation for a period of three years, under the supervision of a probation officer. In addition to the statutory conditions, the accused shall respect the following conditions: • PERFORM 240 hours of community service within a delay of 18 months; • CONTINUE her psychiatric follow-up with Dr.

Luigi Pastò (or his replacement) as required; • CONTINUE her individual follow-ups focused on her wellness with a case worker at the First Peoples Justice Center of Montreal; • PARTICIPATE in a cycle of in residential therapy at Isuarsivik Recovery Center , located in Kuujjuaq, Nunavik once admissible; • PARTICIPATE in cultural activities held at the First Peoples Justice Center of Montreal, Resilience Montreal or Open Door at least once a week (unless for reasons outside her control such programs are not available); • PARTICIPATE in a circle of care facilitated by the First Peoples Justice Center of Montreal; • COLLABORATE in her follow-up with her Projet Logement Montréal caseworker; • MEET with her probation as often as he or she deems necessary; • FOLLOW any recommendations of her probation officer, in particular with respect to programs or activities to address conflict resolution, anger management, and drug or alcohol addiction. __________________________________ SUZANNE COSTOM, J.C.Q.

Me Sylvie Barrette Counsel for the DPCP Me Alexander Grey Attorney for the accused Date of hearing July 14, 2022