R v Simon, 2023 ABCJ 162

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Simon, 2023 ABCJ 162 Date: 20230713 Docket: 201112992P1 Registry: Wetaskiwin Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Adrianne Jean Simon Accused Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Justice J.G. Neustaeter [ 1 ] On September 26, 2020, Corine Threefingers (“the Victim”) and Qunechra Okeynan-Louis (“the Co-Accused”) attended the residence of Adrianne Simon (“the Accused”) in Wetaskiwin, Alberta. Charmaine Louis-Crier (“the Second Co-Accused”) and a fifth female were also there. [ 2 ] Several people were inside the residence.

The whole group went to an upstairs bedroom. Someone attempted to take the Victim’s phone from her which led to a struggle between the Victim and several others. The Co-Accused struck the Victim in the face several times and the Victim lost consciousness. [ 3 ] The Victim woke up and was being restrained by two females, one of whom was the Accused.

The Victim saw the Accused preparing a tattoo gun before she lost consciousness again. [ 4 ] While she was unconscious, the Victim received three tattoos that she did not consent to: “A2Z” on her chest, symbols on her thigh with unknown meaning, and “Charms” on her buttocks. Photos of these tattoos were filed as sentencing exhibit 3. [ 5 ] When she regained consciousness again, the Victim was duct taped and locked in a bedroom. The Second Co-Accused entered the room and told the Victim she could go home in a day or two. The Victim was forcibly confined in this residence for approximately

fifteen hours. [6] At approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 26, 2020, the Victim was blindfolded and walked out to a vehicle. The Victim wastold she would be released and would be followed home. The Victim confirmed she was followed home. [7] The Victim was released without any shoes and was told to walk home. [8] On June 26, 2023, the Accused entered a guilty plea to the charge of assault causing bodily harm against the Victim. This wasa plea to a lesser included offence to the original charge of aggravated assault.

An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed containing thefacts noted above. [9] The matter had been through a preliminary inquiry, where the Victim testified, and the Accused was committed to stand trial inthe Court of King’s Bench. The Accused re-elected to the Alberta Court of Justice where she then entered her guilty plea. The Crown re-elected to proceed summarily on the lesser included offence. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [10] Three Victim Impact Statements were presented to the court. These were prepared by the mother of the Victim, the sister of theVictim, and the husband of the Victim.

The Victim did not prepare a Victim Impact Statement herself. [11] Each of these Victim Impact Statements discuss their dismay that this happened to the Victim and the fear of reprisals as aresult of the Victim going to police. The Victim’s mother also discusses how she has lost trust in the members of her community,especially in light of the fact the Co-Accused was a friend of the Victim’s. [12] I note that the Victim has been literally and permanently marked by what happened to her. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED [13] The Accused was born on March 25, 1993 and was 27 years old at the time of the offence.

She is now 30 years old. She liveswith her parents, Muriel and Murray Simon, on Samson Cree Nation. The Accused has two children, aged 14 and 7. Her parents providefor the primary care of her children and she assists with this. [14] The Accused has a grade 11 education. She attended Samson High School where she experienced bullying. She also beganusing more alcohol while in high school. She stopped attending school because she became pregnant. [15] The only employment history the Accused has is when she was employed at Subway between the ages of 13 and 14.

Shereceives social assistance and her parents assist her with expenses. [16] The Accused suffered from post-partum depression after her second child was born. This triggered an eating disorder which shesays she still suffers from. She does not believe the depression still bothers her, however, she has attempted suicide a couple of times. [17] The Accused began using alcohol around the age of nine. It began as occasional use but, as she got older, it became everyweekend and then every day.

She says she has cut down on alcohol use and now only uses it once in a while. [18] At the time of the offence, the Accused was using cocaine and methamphetamine. She says she had not been using it very long.She says she only uses marihuana now. She has never received any form of treatment. The Accused’s mother believes she is still usingother drugs as she is sometimes awake for several days at a time. Her mother believes she requires treatment but she has never followedthrough with this. [19] The Accused has a prior criminal record.

It consists of a single conviction for theft under $5000 that occurred June 14, 2017 inCamrose, Alberta and she received a $250 fine. [20] There are some additional circumstances of the Accused that are contained in a Gladue Report prepared and filed with thecourt. I will discuss those additional circumstances when I address s. 718.2(

e) later in my reasons. POSITION OF THE CROWN [21] The Crown argues that the Accused should be sentenced to a period of jail of 12 months to be followed by 12 months ofprobation. The Crown provided two sentencing decisions: R. v. Saad, 2010 ABPC 162 and R. v. Dusome, 2014 ABPC 154. POSITION OF THE ACCUSED [22] Counsel for the Accused argues that a conditional sentence order is the appropriate disposition and that the term should be inthe range of 12 – 15 months. Counsel provided me with the case of R. v. Rabbit, 2023 ABCA 170.

Counsel submitted this case as itprovides guidance on dealing with Gladue factors where there is serious violence. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [23] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sanction imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence andthe degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 718.1 Criminal Code).

This recognizes that a fit sentence must carefully balance thesocietal goals of sentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offender, while at all timestaking into account the needs and current conditions of and in the community: R. v. M(C.A.) (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500at para. 91. [24] In imposing a just sanction, the Criminal Code directs that a court takes into account certain objectives including denouncing

unlawful conduct, deterrence, separation of offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, providing reparations, and promotinga sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledging harm which they have done to victims and to the community (s. 718 CC). [25] A sentencing court must take into account relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and a fit sentence should be similar tosentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(

a) and (

b) CC). [26] In fashioning an appropriate sentence a court must take into account that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if lessrestrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances (s. 718.2(

d) CC). [27] In addition, the Criminal Code directs that a court should consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that arereasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, with particular attention to thecircumstances of Aboriginal offenders (s. 718.2(

e) CC). [28] I have borrowed heavily in this

section from the decision of Chief Justice Redman in R. v. Umpherville, 2016 ABPC 96. I willhave more to say about this decision later in my reasons. GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE [29] The Victim in this case was taken to the home of the Accused by a person she thought was a friend. Once there, she wasassaulted by multiple persons so severely she lost consciousness more than once. [30] She was physically restrained and prevented from leaving the residence for approximately 15 hours. The Accused participatedin restraining the Victim.

The Accused also prepared the tattoo gun that was later used to tattoo the Victim against her will, therebypermanently marking her and giving her a constant reminder of what happened to her. [31] Although the facts presented to me do not speak of what planning there may have been prior to the violence perpetrated on theVictim, given what has been presented, it is hard to imagine that there wasn’t a level of planning and deliberation involved in thisoffence. Given that it took place in the home of the Accused, she was involved. [32] The offence in this case took place over an extended period of time.

The Victim was restrained by individuals and also withduct tape. The violence was perpetrated by multiple persons ganging up on the Victim. Much of the violence was committed after theVictim was rendered helpless and defenceless. [33] The tattooing of the Victim while she was restrained was akin to torture. [34] The gravity of the offence in this case is high. DEGREE OF RESONSIBILITY OF THE OFFENDER [35] Counsel for the Accused argued that her degree of responsibility is reduced because it is unclear what role she played in theactual application of the tattoos to the Victim.

The Accused made a statement to police upon her arrest that it was another person whoactually applied the tattoos. [36] However, the Accused participated in restraining the Victim and in preparing the tattoo gun so that the tattoos could be applied. [37] In R. v. MacIntyre, 1992 ABCA 319, the Court of Appeal had occasion to consider assaults committed as part of a group and itsimpact on the assessment of an appropriate sentence.

Chief Justice Fraser, as she then was, states the following: (3)...In this case, the sentencing judge should have taken into account the whole of the collective attacks on the victim including, therange and duration of the event, rather than looking at the role of each of these in stop-action. It is true that because of the manner inwhich the evidence evolved, it is impossible to determine which of the four individuals involved, if any, caused the blow to Devereaux’sleft leg which ultimately figured prominently in his death.

But when individuals act as part of a group or gang and perpetrate criminalacts, this gang-like feature of their activities does not permit each individual to offer his individual involvement alone, ignoring forsentencing purposes, the seriousness of their collective actions. When a person acts in concert with other members of a group or gang tovictimize a single victim, that person must accept the consequences which flow from this group action. Each member of the group mustbe taken to know that by committing individual assaults upon a victim, he advances, and even encourages, the violence of others.

Thevictim hardly delineates.

(4) This is one reason why committing criminal offences as part of a group is properly regarded as a significant aggravating factor. Thisvery point has been made by Andrew Ashworth in Sentencing and Penal Policy (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983) at p. 198: An individual’s offence may be regarded as more serious if he committed it as part of a group or gang of offenders. One reason... is thatsuch offences place the individual victim at a far greater disadvantage, and tend to cause greater fear and alarm.

Rape by a gang hasgenerally been treated as more serious than rape by a single offender, and the greater terror inspired in the victim provides an obviousjustification for that (moreover the terror could hardly escape the notice of each individual member of the group). [38] Even though it cannot be said that the Accused actually applied the tattoos to the Victim, her degree of responsibility for thataction is not reduced as she was part of a group of offenders who committed these acts. Her degree of responsibility is high. CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ABORIGINAL OFFENDER: S. 718.2(

e) CC [39] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, (SCC) noted that s. 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code requiressentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances ofAboriginal offenders, noting this

section is remedial in nature and its purpose was to ameliorate the serious problem of over-representation of Aboriginal people in prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to

sentencing. [ 40 ] I take judicial notice of the broad, systemic and background factors affecting indigenous people, and of the priority given in indigenous cultures to a restorative approach to sentencing. [ 41 ]

Section 718.2(

e) is not to be taken as a means of automatically reducing the prison sentence of indigenous offenders or assuming that an indigenous offender is receiving a more lenient sentence. [ 42 ] The Supreme Court emphasized in R. v.

Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 that an offender is not required to establish a causal link between background factors and the commission of the current offence before being entitled to have those matters considered by a sentencing judge. [ 43 ] The background factors of an indigenous offender, often referred to as Gladue factors, must be considered by a sentencing judge and a judge may find that those factors impact on the moral culpability, or degree of responsibility, of an offender. [ 44 ] A Gladue Report was submitted to the court on March 27, 2023 and was filed as sentencing exhibit 4 in these proceedings.

This Report explores the history of the Accused with a focus on her background factors as an indigenous person. [ 45 ] The Accused grew up on the Samson Cree Nation and continues to live in this community. She has expressed a desire to relocate to Red Deer, Alberta in the future. Samson Cree Nation is one of four communities that make up the Maskwacis Cree, formerly known as Hobbema. [ 46 ] The Accused attended the Ermineskin Day School during her elementary school years. She has applied for the day school settlement. Both sets of her grandparents attended residential school.

All of her grandparents are now deceased. She only ever met her maternal grandmother and she never talked about her residential school experiences. [ 47 ] The Accused reports that most of her extended family lived on the same block as she did and so she grew up with many of her cousins. Aunts and uncles were always around and would stop in to check on them. [ 48 ] Her parents worked throughout her childhood and they had everything they needed. The Accused also reports that there was a lot of alcohol use in her home. There were a lot of parties in her home and in the neighbourhood and sometimes violence broke out.

She reports witnessing domestic violence between her parents a couple of times. She also reports her parents separating five times. Her parents are sober now, but growing up she can’t recall a time when they weren’t drunk. [ 49 ] The Accused reports that she was sexually assaulted a couple of times by a babysitter. There was no police involvement. [ 50 ] The Accused says she was exposed to gang activity from a young age, as young as nine. She says her cousins and siblings were also involved so she didn’t realize it was a gang initially.

She says she is no longer involved in a gang but her involvement has caused her to be paranoid when in public as she wonders if she will get jumped. [ 51 ] The Accused’s mother told the Gladue writer that she feels the Accused exaggerates about her childhood. She feels the Accused was not involved in a gang until 2019 when she began bringing people into the home. [ 52 ] The Accused reports her longest relationship was with Justin, whom she started dating when she was 14. He is the father of her oldest child and they were together for ten years.

They had plans to get back together but Justin was killed by a friend of his in Calgary three years ago. [ 53 ] The Accused reports having two other significant relationships. She was with Dean for five years and was with Clifford for four years. She reports experiencing domestic violence in her relationships with Justin and Clifford. [ 54 ] The Accused reports that a couple of her cousins have died recently and one of her uncles died in March 2023. Her younger cousin was killed in October and her mother found him. Her most traumatic experience was when her cousin Billy was shot and killed.

When police came, they made everyone kneel on the ground with their guns drawn. She thought of Billy as one of her brothers. [ 55 ] The Accused says she has given up a lot of her culture over the years and has stopped attending big ceremonies like pow wows, round dances, funerals and wakes as she gets anxious when there are a lot of people around. She does smudge every day as she feels the smell of sage or sweetgrass helps kill off bad energy and bring good to the day.

She does attend smaller ceremonies once in a while, like tea dances or feasts. [ 56 ] Having considered all of her unique background factors as an indigenous offender, I do find that her degree of responsibility is reduced to some extent, although not to a significant degree. [ 57 ] I have considered the Rabbit decision provided to me by counsel for the Accused in coming to this conclusion. PARITY OF SENTENCE [ 58 ] The Crown provided me with two cases to consider. They are below. R. v.

Saad , 2010 ABPC 162 [ 59 ] The accused in this case was convicted after trial of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. The accused stabbed his roommate while he was sleeping in an unprovoked and unexpected knife attack. The victim suffered serious injuries requiring hospitalization and surgery. The accused had no prior record. This was an indictable proceeding. The sentencing judge found the appropriate range of sentence to be 15 – 18 months jail.

The previous good character and record free history of the accused convinced the judge the lower end of the range was appropriate and he imposed a 15 month jail sentence.

R. v. Dusome , 2014 ABPC 154 [ 60 ] The accused plead guilty to assault causing bodily harm. Crown had proceeded summarily. The accused and the victim were friends and were at the home of the accused. As the victim was preparing to leave, he couldn’t find his phone and he struck the accused with a pillow and told him he had to help find his phone. This led to some pushing and shoving. The accused went to the kitchen, retrieved a knife, and returned to stab his friend twice causing serious injuries. The accused immediately called 911 and stayed with the victim until EMS arrived.

The victim required four different surgeries and lost several months of work. [ 61 ] The Crown sought 12 – 18 months jail plus probation. Defence sought a conditional discharge or suspended sentence but also provided the court with conditional sentence authorities.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 12 months jail plus 18 months probation. [ 62 ] In considering a conditional sentence, the sentencing judge found that, even though the accused had made significant changes to improve his life, the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation meant that a conditional sentence was not consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing and was not appropriate in this case. [ 63 ] I have also considered the following sentencing decisions: R. v. Umpherville , 2016 ABPC 96 [ 64 ] There were three female offenders in this case.

The three offenders were all friends and were acquaintances of the victim. One offender was angry with the victim because of recent events and they all concocted a plan to lure the victim to the residence of one of the offenders located on an acreage. One offender contacted the victim, picked her up, and drove her to the residence. Each of the offenders then participated in a lengthy, sustained and vicious assault on the victim. The victim’s wrists were tied, she was blindfolded and her head covered. She was punched and kicked on various parts of the body including her head.

Her glasses were broken and her wallet, identification and credit cards were set on fire. The offenders choked the victim and threatened to beat her with a bat. The victim begged the offenders to stop but they did not. The victim was taken for a ride in the country where the offenders continued to threaten her. The victim was brought back to the residence where she was made to undress and shower. She was given new clothes and was eventually driven to a location in Lethbridge and released.

The victim was held by the offenders for between 7 and 12 hours. [ 65 ] Each of the offenders plead guilty to unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm. Two of the offenders had no criminal record. The third offender had a minor criminal record. Each of the offenders had Gladue factors to varying degrees.

The offenders were aged 19, 22 and 24 at the time of the offences. [ 66 ] The Crown suggested that the appropriate range was 1 – 2 years jail and that the appropriate sentence in this case should be at least 1 year jail followed by probation. [ 67 ] One of the aggravating factors found by the sentencing judge was that the offences occurred over a lengthy period of time, being 7 – 12 hours.

He also found that, although each offender may have committed different acts, they were all jointly responsible for the acts perpetrated by the group. [ 68 ] The sentencing judge also considered the availability of a conditional sentence. He found that none of the offenders would endanger the safety of the community if permitted to serve their sentence in the community. However, he found that the imposition of a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

He pointed to the fact the actions of the offenders towards the victim were shocking, cruel and demeaning, constituting a group attack on the victim who was their friend. The attack continued for an extended time and was perpetrated in part after the victim had been rendered defenceless. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v.

Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , the sentencing judge noted that a conditional sentence was not appropriate as the circumstances were such that the need for denunciation and deterrence was so pressing that incarceration was the only suitable way to express society’s condemnation of the offenders’ conduct. [ 69 ] The sentencing judge found that the appropriate sentencing range was 18 months – 2 years. Considering the mitigating factors, including the Gladue factors of each offender, he saw fit to reduce the sentence. He sentenced each of the offenders to 12 months jail. R. v.

Samani et al., 2013 ONCJ 161 [ 70 ] The three female offenders lured the victim, a friend of theirs, out of her home in the late evening, blindfolded her, forced her into a car, and beat her before dragging her out of the car and leaving her unconscious by the side of a road. The assault took place over the course of 10 – 15 minutes. Each of the offenders plead guilty to assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement on the day the preliminary inquiry was to take place.

The Crown re-elected to proceed summarily. [ 71 ] The victim suffered bruising to her forehead, arm and left shoulder as well as a large cut above her left eye. She was in constant pain for several weeks. She could not sleep on her back for three weeks and suffered migraines and nausea. [ 72 ] Two of the offenders were 22 and the third was 25 at the time of the offences. None of them had any prior criminal record. Each offender had a positive Pre-Sentence Report and the sentencing judge was satisfied that each of them could achieve rehabilitation.

Each of them had complied with the terms of their release orders over the two years between the offences and the sentencing. [ 73 ] The Crown sought a nine month jail sentence. Defence counsel all agreed with the range but suggested a conditional sentence was appropriate. [ 74 ] In describing the incident, the sentencing judge said the following at the conclusion of his review of the aggravating factors in paragraph 31: “In

summary, this was a serious, frightening, callous act of group violence, committed for inexplicable reasons. Its shocking features and

penetrating consequences are egregious and aggravating and define the incident as a grave manifestation of the offences of unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm.” [ 75 ] The sentencing judge accepted that each of the offenders was not only capable of rehabilitation, but had taken concrete steps in that direction.

The judge was also satisfied that none of the offenders would endanger the safety of the community if allowed to serve their sentence in the community. [ 76 ] After considering the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Proulx , the sentencing judge concluded that a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

In view of the gravity of the offences and the egregiousness of the aggravating circumstances, a sentence of imprisonment was needed to fulfill the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [ 77 ] Considering the mitigating factors though, the judge found that a reduced sentence was appropriate and he sentenced each offender to 6.5 months of jail plus two years of probation. MITIGATING FACTORS [ 78 ] The fact the Accused entered a guilty plea is a mitigating factor. However, her guilty plea cannot be considered an early guilty plea and came after the Victim was required to testify at the preliminary inquiry.

Therefore, although her guilty plea is still mitigating, it’s impact is reduced. [ 79 ] The background circumstances of this Accused as an indigenous person reduce her degree of responsibility and this is also a mitigating factor. [ 80 ] Counsel for the Accused pointed out that that the Accused has followed her conditions of release since being charged with the offences in this case. Although this is a positive fact, compliance with release conditions is not a mitigating factor ( see R. v. Sarrasin , 2021 ABCA 253 ).

AGGRAVATING FACTORS [ 81 ] The attack on the Victim in this case involved at least some degree of planning and deliberation. [ 82 ] The Victim was attacked by multiple assailants. She did not have a chance. [ 83 ] The Victim was beaten to unconsciousness, restrained, and then tattooed multiple times without her consent, permanently marking her.

This was akin to torture. [ 84 ] Much of the attack on the Victim occurred after she had been rendered defenceless, either because she was unconscious, restrained, or both. [ 85 ] The attack on the Victim took place over a lengthy period of time, approximately 15 hours. [ 86 ] The attack on the Victim took place while she was being prevented from leaving. [ 87 ] A weapon was used in the attack on the Victim, that being the tattoo gun. [ 88 ] The attack on the Victim involved the abuse of a vulnerable person who is also an Aboriginal woman.

The court must give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence in this circumstance (s. 718.04 CC ). CONDITIONAL SENTENCE [ 89 ]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code together with the Proulx decision of the Supreme Court provide guidance for when a conditional sentence may be an appropriate sentence. [ 90 ] This case meets the statutory preconditions for consideration of a conditional sentence. There is no mandatory minimum period of incarceration and, because the Crown elected to proceed summarily, the maximum sentence of imprisonment is less than two years. [ 91 ] I am also satisfied that the Accused would not endanger the safety of the community if she were allowed to serve her sentence in the community.

The Accused has a very limited criminal history and has no history of failing to comply with court orders. She has also managed to follow conditions of release for close to three years. Although I have noted this fact is not mitigating, it does show that she can be in the community without reoffending which is relevant. [ 92 ] The more difficult question is whether service of a sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Would a conditional sentence satisfactorily fulfil the objectives of denunciation and deterrence? [ 93 ] I must give serious consideration to the possibility of a conditional sentence. Proulx established unequivocally that denunciation and deterrence do not necessarily require a sentence of actual incarceration. [ 94 ] A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence. As a general matter, the more serious the offence, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be.

There may be some circumstances, however, where the need for denunciation and deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future. [ 95 ] Where objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so notwithstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved.

[ 96 ] However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denunciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served. ( Proulx , para. 127 ) [ 97 ] Applying these considerations to the facts of this case, I find that a conditional sentence would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Given the gravity of the offence and the egregiousness of the aggravating circumstances, a sentence of actual incarceration is needed to fulfil the objectives of deterrence and denunciation. To quote Proulx again, this is a case “where the need for denunciation and deterrence is so pressing that incarceration is the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation for the offender’s conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future”. FIT SENTENCE [ 98 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of 12 months jail. Counsel for the Accused argues for a sentence of 12 – 15 months, but as a conditional sentence.

Although they essentially agree on the proper range of sentence, this was not argued as a joint submission before me. [ 99 ] I have concluded that 12 months jail is within the appropriate range for this offence in these particular circumstances. [ 100 ] Given my finding that the Accused’s degree of responsibility is reduced on account of her Gladue factors, I find that the sentence can be reduced to some degree. [ 101 ] Therefore, I sentence the Accused to a period of imprisonment of 9 months. This will be followed by a period of 24 months of probation. The conditions of probation will be as follows: 1.

You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. You shall appear before the court when the court requires you to do so; 3. You shall notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of your name, address or telephone numbers and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change in your employment or occupation; 4. You shall have no contact or communication in any manner with Corinne Threefingers, Qunechra Okeynan-Louis, Charmaine Louis-Crier, or Jamie Bull; 5.

You shall not enter or be within 100 metres of the home, workplace, school or place of learning of Corine Threefingers; 6. You shall be under the supervision of a probation officer and will report to that probation officer within 72 hours of your release from prison. After that, you shall report to your probation officer as directed by your probation officer; 7.

You shall attend, participate in, and complete any assessment or program of guidance, counseling, or treatment your probation officer directs you to do, which could be a residential treatment one, relating to: - Alcohol abuse or addiction - Drug or substance abuse or addiction - Psychiatric and/or psychological issues - Any other one that your probation officer deems necessary 8. If your probation officer directs you to attend any assessment, treatment or counseling program, you shall give proof of attendance and completion to your probation officer upon demand.

You shall sign any release or waiver as directed by your probation officer allowing him/her access to any information needed to assist your supervision. [ 102 ] The Accused is required to provide a sample of her DNA for the purposes of the DNA Databank as the offence in this case is a primary designated offence. [ 103 ] The Accused will be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance for a period of 10 years.

This order is pursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code . [ 104 ] As the Accused is subsisting on social assistance, I find the imposition of a victim surcharge in this case would cause undue hardship to the Accused and I decline to order it. Heard on the 26 th day of June, 2023. Dated at the City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta this 13 th day of July, 2023.

J.G. Neustaeter A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Alexandra J. Dunn for the Crown Rob Wachowich for the Accused