His Majesty the King - v. -, 2024 SKPC 10

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2024 SKPC 10 Date: January 23, 2024 Information: 991202616 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: His Majesty the King - and - Priscilla Wasacase Appearing: Adam Breker For the Crown Taylor Bereziak For the Accused JUDGMENT N.P. EVANCHUK, J Introduction [ 1 ] Priscilla Wasacase pled guilty to robbery contrary to

section 344 of the Criminal Code [ Code ] in relation to a short, but violent interaction she had with Frederick Materna in a taxicab during the early hours of June 17, 2022 in Regina, Saskatchewan. After the reading of an Agreed Statement of Fact and filing an in-car video of the incident, a

section 752.1 Assessment Order was issued by this Court. [ 2 ] A subsequent review by Dr. Maryana Kravtsenyuk was completed and filed with the Court. Following evidence at the sentence hearing, during which the Court heard from three witnesses, the parties concede that Ms. Wasacase meets the criteria for designation as a long-term offender pursuant to

section 753.1 of the Code . The parties also jointly recommend that I sentence Ms. Wasacase to a period of incarceration of 8 years followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

[ 3 ] Although the parties have joined in their recommendation as it relates to offender designation status and sentence, the Court must be satisfied that a long-term offender designation is an appropriate order pursuant to

section 753.1 of the Criminal Code . See R v Keepness , 2013 SKQB 441 , 435 Sask R 119, and R v Flanagan , 2012 SKCA 45 , 393 Sask R 126. As I will outline in this decision, I am satisfied upon review of the facts of this case and the personal circumstances of the offender, along with the conclusions of Dr. Kravtsenyuk and the evidence heard at the sentencing hearing, that Ms. Wasacase meets the criteria for a long-term offender designation.

I am also satisfied that the joint submission on sentence is fit and appropriate when considering the purposes and principles of sentencing and would not put the administration of justice in disrepute. Circumstances of the Offence [ 4 ] The victim, Frederick Materna, a taxicab driver, picked up two women in his cab at approximately 5:45 a.m. on June 17, 2022 at a Tim Horton’s near the intersection of 7 th Avenue and Albert Street in Regina. The entirety of the interaction between Materna and the two women was captured by a dashcam.

Both Crown and Wasacase acknowledge that at the time the passengers entered the taxicab they were heavily intoxicated. [ 5 ] Ms. Wasacase asked Materna to take her and the other passenger to 1916 Park Street. Unfortunately for Mr. Materna, his fares had no intention of completing the journey. While driving to that destination, Wasacase, who was seated next to the victim, pulled out a knife and held it against Materna’s neck whilst demanding that the driver provide his attackers with cash.

Wasacase can be heard on the dashcam recording saying, “we’re going to fuckin’ roll ya”. [ 6 ] The victim can be seen on the video reacting calmly to the threat of the knife against his neck. He immediately pulled the car to the side of the road and stated that no money would be provided to Wasacase as she was not strong enough to rob him. He grabbed Wasacase by the hand, bent her fingers back and took the weapon from the offender. Luckily, Mr. Materna did not suffer any physical injuries from this assault.

Wasacase persisted in attempting to steal items from the cab, and ultimately stole a debit/credit machine from the console along with a phone that was located at the same place. Wasacase attempted to flee and was followed by the victim. He gave chase and was able to strike Wasacase several times with kicks but ultimately she was able to flee the scene. [ 7 ] Wasacase was identified through the in-car video and the victim’s description of Wasacase’s tattoos. She was arrested by members of Regina Police Service on July 13, 2022. There is no dispute that she is culpable for the essential elements of the offence.

Circumstances of the Offender [ 8 ] The personal life and upbringing of Priscilla Wasacase was outlined at Tab 1 of Exhibit P-1 of the sentencing materials. It would be a gross understatement to suggest that the offender had a troubled childhood. From the time of her birth to the present, Wasacase has been the victim of horrific physical, sexual and emotional abuse. She lacked stability in her formative years, having been moved between various relatives and households where she struggled to find normalcy.

She was exposed at the earliest age to substance abuse, neglect and feelings of separation from those people who ought to have been providing a loving home environment for her. It is little surprise that by the time she was a teenager, Priscilla Wasacase was displaying warning signs of pre-criminal behavior. [ 9 ] Priscilla Wasacase was born in Regina on August 14, 1993. She had immediately been the subject of an emergency protection order but was taken from hospital by her parents to be raised in the care of a sister on the George Gordon First Nation.

She moved around for some time in her early years, and at the age of three, suffered a severe trauma when an aunt attempted to drown her in a bathtub. For the next seven years following this incident, Wasacase was the victim of grooming and sexual assault at the hands of her maternal grandfather while living on reserve. This sexual abuse involved manipulation, threats and other means of silencing Wasacase from disclosing her trauma to others. [ 10 ] Wasacase did not have a close relationship with her father as he had been incarcerated for the formative years of her childhood.

Her relationship with her mother was strained by the eventual disclosure of the sexual abuse at the hands of her maternal grandfather. Her mother refused to believe the abuse allegations, which caused a great deal of emotional pain and confusion. Both of her parents suffered from alcohol use disorder and substance use disorders. Both passed away when Wasacase was in her 20s. [ 11 ] Ms. Wasacase struggled with school during her upbringing, due in large part to the constant moving and instability in her life.

She was dramatically behind in her reading and comprehension skills, problems which were never adequately addressed in the classroom.

[ 12 ] Wasacase began using substances from the age of 12 and has struggled with both alcohol and non-prescription drug use throughout her life. Drug and alcohol use have been the primary contributing factor to her offending behavior over the years. She has attended treatment before in the past but her longest periods of sobriety have been whilst incarcerated. [ 13 ] Wasacase’s criminal history commenced when she was 12 and has continued without interruption, save for time spent incarcerated, until the time of the present offence.

Between the age of 15 and the current offence, she has spent only 28 months of cumulative time outside some form of correctional facility. Her criminal record and correctional history were filed as part of Exhibit P- 1. Her record, which includes a youth conviction for manslaughter, along with numerous robberies and aggravated assaults, demonstrates a clear pattern of offending. Wasacase concedes in her submissions that she has a history of offending with bladed weapons.

Issues [ 14 ] The primary issue before the Court is twofold, namely whether the Crown has established that Wasacase meets the statutory definition of a long-term offender in

section 753.1 of the Code as well as whether the joint submission proposed is a fit and appropriate sentence, having regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing outlined in

section 718 of the Code . Evidence [ 15 ] As the parties agreed as to the designation of offender status and quantum of sentence, the evidence before the Court was uncontroverted. The Crown called three witnesses: Dr. Maryana Kravtsenyuk, Karrie Schuetz and Amy McRae. In addition, the Crown filed a large volume of material by consent of the parties that outlined Wasacase’s criminal history, personal circumstances and corrections database material. [ 16 ] Dr. Kravtsenyuk provided the Court with a very detailed analysis of her August 14, 2023 report. Dr.

Kravtsenyuk’s curriculum vitae was also filed with her reports and her expertise was admitted by defence counsel. Although this was only the third case where she was retained as a court expert, her qualifications, in brief, are exemplary and she is currently employed at the Toronto Centre for Addictions and Mental Health with a specialty in the treatment of offenders who have been deemed “NCR” in court matters. She has a specialty in forensic psychiatry. [ 17 ] Dr.

Kravtsenyuk’s opinion as outlined in her report was based on a review of all Wasacase’s file information, interviews, and diagnostic/risk assessment tests. These assessments included tests for psychopathy, violence risk and cognitive and personality traits. [ 18 ] Her report and testimony highlighted that Wasacase suffered extreme amounts of trauma at an early age. This included physical, sexual and emotional abuse. There was pre-natal compromise, the effects of intergenerational trauma and severe addiction present.

A formal diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder with Borderline Personality Disorder traits was provided. Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that this was a challenging prognosis, as Wasacase’s underlying condition was affected by co-morbid diagnoses and neurodevelopmental issues. In short, Wasacase will require some form of lifelong medical/psychiatric care, as some of her maladaptive personality traits cannot be cured. [ 19 ] However, Dr. Kravtsenyuk did note that when Wasacase has been offered structure and support with a “culturally informed approach” whilst incarcerated that there was a positive period of response.

Without support, she predicted the offender would struggle to abstain from risky behaviors. It was the history of unmet treatment needs, including trauma-based recovery approaches, that previously contributed to some of the behaviors leading to criminal activity. [ 20 ] As far as treatment modalities, Dr.

Kravtsenyuk noted that Wasacase requires a comprehensive addictions and treatment plan that ought to draw from various modalities, including psychotherapy, addictions counselling, medications and trauma informed care. [ 21 ] In terms of medical assistance, the report noted that a medication plan that combined anti-psychotic injections, anti- depressants and oral anti-psychotics through ongoing care and supervision will likely control Wasacase’s impulses provided it is followed-up with culturally informed approaches.

[ 22 ] In conclusion, Dr. Kravtsenyuk found that Wasacase presents with significant cognitive, psychiatric and addictions challenges, but that through consistent programming and therapeutic approaches she can be a manageable risk provided her treatment focuses on trauma-informed care and culturally informed anger management programming, which will lead to increased emotional regulation and adequate risk management. Dr.

Kravtsenyuk affirmed on cross-examination by Wasacase’s counsel that despite the offender’s cognitive and emotional deficits, she is still capable of successfully completing programming and recovery. [ 23 ] The Crown also called two representatives from Corrections Service of Canada, Karrie Schuetz and Amy McRae, to provide context as to the available programming for female offenders. These witnesses outlined how a correctional plan for a female offender through the Integrated Corrections Program Model can assist offenders in identifying target behaviors and skill developments with the aim of rehabilitation.

In addition, Ms. Schuetz spoke specifically about the Indigenous Women Offender Program, which offers a culturally informed approach, and the High-Intensity Offender Program, which involves intensive group counselling sessions and Elder involvement. These programs also offer addictions programming in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous twelve-step meetings.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is available for offenders at all levels of classifications and in general each offender has a management team consisting of a parole officer, a program officer and mental health staff to monitor offender progress and assist in creating a maintenance program for offenders. [ 24 ] Amy McRae, in her role as a parole officer supervisor, provided contextual evidence regarding the nature of Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO) maintenance and supervision.

She noted that LTSO conditions are determined by the Parole Board in consultation with the offender’s parole officer in response to criminogenic factors on a case-by-case basis. The factors noted included substance abuse, family status, personal emotional orientation, education/employment status, community functioning, attitude and associates. LTSO conditions, Ms. McRae noted, are stringent and hold offenders to abstention conditions which are monitored by random screens at a contracted facility.

In addition, the offenders are monitored for their associations and the necessity of follow-up treatment for addictions. Law [ 25 ] The designation of long-term offender status is outlined in

section 753.1(1) of the Code , which outlines the pre-requisite conditions before such an Order can be made: 753.1

(1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that (

a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted; (

b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and (

c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. [ 26 ] Additionally,

section 753.1(2)(

b) further defines the scope by which a sentencing court is to ascertain whether “substantial risk to reoffend” is applicable:

(2) The court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if … (

b) the offender: (

i) has shown a pattern of repetitive behavior, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, that shows a likelihood of the offender’s causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons. [ 27 ]

Section 753.1(3) states that upon a finding that an offender is deemed a long-term offender, the Court shall impose a sentence of at least 2 years and an order of long-term supervision that cannot exceed 10 years. [ 28 ] The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal summarized the scope and purpose of the long-term supervision regime in the case of R v Badger , 2012 SKCA 119 , 405 Sask R 97.

There the Court noted at paragraph 57 that LTSO designations and sentences are reserved for offenders whose risk of reoffending, while exceptional, appears open to eventual and/or acceptable control in the community through the imposition of a long-term offender sentence. A sentencing court is not required to determine whether the risk of reoffending is eliminated, but rather whether there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community by way of a fixed carceral sentence

followed by a period of long-term supervision ( Badger ; para 59 ). [ 29 ] In the present case, when applying the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in sections 718 , 718.1 and 718.2, a sentence in excess of 2 years is clearly appropriate. The offender Ms. Wasacase has a long criminal history involving the use of bladed instruments during spontaneous acts of violence, including a youth conviction for manslaughter. More specifically, the offender appears to be predisposed to offences where she lacks impulse control, leading to serious injury and harm to victims.

When taking into account her history, coupled with the need for denunciation and deterrence, a sentence of 3 years represents the lower end of the scale for a robbery committed against persons who are vulnerable to crime by virtue of their employment, such as taxi drivers or convenience store clerks (see R v Charles , 2021 SKCA 114 ). [ 30 ] As it relates to the pattern of repetitive behavior, the report and testimony of Dr.

Kravtsenyuk in consideration of Wasacase’s offending history and personal circumstances outlines a pattern of violent behavior that is worsened by the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs (see report at page 76). Absent any significant intervention strategies and therapy, Wasacase is likely to recidivate in a violent fashion. Although in recent years certain institutional programming offered through the federal corrections institutions has in some respect mitigated her overall risk, in the absence of follow-up monitoring and care, the behaviors are likely to re-emerge.

Wasacase’s pattern of offending is exacerbated by her limited emotional controls and neurodevelopmental deficits. The Court is mindful that much of the psycho-social challenges Wasacase faces are a direct result of her troubled upbringing, abuse suffered in childhood and lack of supports in general. Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that the offender meets the criteria of “substantial risk to reoffend”. [ 31 ] The third requirement, that there is a possibility of eventual control in the community, was addressed at page 81 of Dr. Kravtsenyuk’s report and expanded on in her evidence at the sentencing hearing. In

summary, the assessment concluded that a properly structured treatment plan, taking into consideration Ms. Wasacase’s challenges, can manage her risk and lead to eventual control in the community. The report and evidence at the sentencing hearing also placed emphasis on culturally sensitive approaches that acknowledge the trauma Ms. Wasacase has suffered as an Indigenous woman. [ 32 ] The program supports offered through the federal corrections system were outlined at length by the Crown witnesses.

To summarize, if designated as a long-term offender and sentenced to a period of incarceration in excess of 2 years, Wasacase will continue to be able to access intensive programming aimed at both therapeutic cognitive behavior and addictions treatment. Her corrections history filed during this proceeding demonstrates that Wasacase is open to further treatment for substance abuse, trauma-informed therapy and culturally sensitive training.

Therefore, the Court has no hesitation in accepting the measured conclusions contained in the assessment report and finds that the requirement of control in the community has been met. Sentence [ 33 ] Having found that Ms.

Wasacase meets the criteria for long-term offender status, I will now address the proposed joint submission of a sentence of 8 years’ incarceration (less time spent on remand). [ 34 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the rule of law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that: • denounce unlawful conduct; • deter the offender and others from committing offences; • separate offenders from society were necessary; • assist in their rehabilitation; • provide reparations for the harm done; and • promote a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community: Code ,

section 718 . [ 35 ] It is also fundamental that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender [ Code ,

section 718.1 ]. A fit sentence must demonstrate parity in that similar circumstances should attract similar sentences. A sentencing court must also follow the above principles and purposes of sentencing with restraint and common humanity. Any decision imposed should account for relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable to the offence and the offender. [ Code ,

section 718.2 (a)]. Additionally, a sentencing judge must look to all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances having account for the harm done to victims, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders, otherwise known as Gladue [1] factors. [ Code ,

section 718.2 (e)].

[ 36 ] As mentioned above, Ms. Wasacase comes before the Court with a lengthy record replete with offences for violence. Additionally, she has consistently shown a predisposition for offending with violence whilst under the influence of intoxicating substances. The victim in the present case was a taxi driver, in a vulnerable position at the time of the offence, with the risk of severe injury or death. A bladed instrument was placed at his throat. This offence is therefore at the high range of gravity.

The offender’s history before the Court and offending behavior leads to the conclusion that her degree of responsibility is high, notwithstanding she was intoxicated at the time of the act. [ 37 ] The Court must be mindful to acknowledge the presence of Gladue factors in this case. Here, Ms. Wasacase presents with a personal history that contains horrific trauma that was visited upon her from the earliest of ages. She was the product of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse from direct family members. She was exposed to racism and differential treatment at school.

She had little in the way of proper supports or care. It is a testament to her personal resilience that Ms. Wasacase is alive today. Her personal circumstances are the textbook case for the application of Gladue principles. [ 38 ] There are a number of aggravating factors in this case militating in favour of a lengthy carceral sentence. The most significant of these are: 1. The use of a bladed weapon to a vulnerable victim; and 2. The history of violent criminal behavior of the offender. [ 39 ] There are also a number of mitigating factors applicable to this case. They include: 1.

The offender’s guilty plea and expression of remorse; 2. The offender’s cognitive and psycho-social challenges that were a result of her difficult childhood; 3. The offender’s sincere desire to address her addictions and psychological problems. [ 40 ] Sentencing is necessarily an individualized process that requires application of the principles of sentencing in respect to the specific offence and the offender. In addition, the Court must take into careful consideration any joint submission arrived at by counsel.

It is well established law in Canada that great deference is to be given by sentencing judges to joint submissions. A joint submission should only be rejected if its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down ( R v Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 at para 34 [2016] 2 SCR 204 ). Accordingly, a joint submission should be followed unless the imposition of same would be grossly inappropriate and would be contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

It follows that the proper functioning of our judicial system requires deference to joint submissions when the proposed sentence falls within the range of reasonable sentences. The fact that a sentence imposed by virtue of a joint submission may be different than what the Court would have imposed in its absence is not sufficient grounds to move from the proposed sentence. [ 41 ] Here, the parties have presented a recommendation of a carceral sentence of 8 years (less remand from the time of the sentencing hearing), followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Having considered the submissions of Crown and defence and the evidence filed in the course of the sentencing hearing, I find the joint submission to be fit and appropriate in the circumstances.

Summary [ 42 ] Therefore, I sentence Ms. Wasacase as follows: 1. Priscilla Wasacase is hereby declared to be a long-term offender pursuant to

part XXIV the Code .

2. In respect to the robbery offence, I sentence her to a determinant sentence of 8 years’ incarceration, less credit for time spent on remand at the rate of 1.5 days for every actual day from the date of the sentencing hearing. 3. I order that Priscilla Wasacase shall be subject to a long-term supervision order for a period of 10 years, to commence on the expiration of this term in prison. 4. As this is a primary designated offence of violence, an Order will issue in the usual form pursuant to

section 109 of the Code prohibiting Priscilla Wasacase from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life. 5. Pursuant to

section 487.051 of the Code , an Order shall issue in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis from Priscilla Wasacase. [ 43 ] Given the length of time Ms. Wasacase will spend incarcerated, coupled with her personal challenges, the Court finds it would be an undue hardship to impose the victim of crime surcharge and it is accordingly waived in this case. _____________________________ N.P. Evanchuk, J