Appeal allowed against sentence. A substitution of four years minus pre-sentence custody and removal of a victim surcharge is given to an Indigenous man who sexually assaulted an intoxicated woman after luring her to his home under the guise of safety.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

This matter deals with a sentence appeal for Mr. Monty Kishayinew, an Indigenous man from Yellow Quill First Nation. He was convicted of sexually assaulting an intoxicated and vulnerable woman who he encountered in an alley in Saskatoon, where under the pretence of offering her help, he took her to his home. There, he sexually assaulted her in his basement, and until she feigned needing to use the bathroom and was able to escape (R v Kishayinew, 2017 SKQB 177).

Mr. Kishayinew was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison, minus credit for pre-sentence custody but has appealed both conviction and sentence. Appeal for his conviction was granted and a new trial was ordered. As a result, his sentence appeal was not addressed. The conviction was restored by a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which remanded the matter to this Court to determine the sentence appeal.

After conviction, the trial judge adjourned sentencing and ultimately ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report. Mr. Kishayinew was sentenced to 54 months of incarceration, minus a pre-sentence credit of 17 months and 2 days, and for Mr. Kishayinew to pay a victim surcharge in the amount of $200 within 30 days, with 2 consecutive days in default of payment (R v Kishayinew, 2017 SKQB 340).

Mr. Kishayinew appeals his sentence pursuant to s 675(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. A sentencing decision is entitled to considerable deference upon appeal (R v LV, 2016 SKCA 74, [2017] 1 WWR 439 ). This Court concluded, however, that the trial judge committed errors in principle by erroneously relying on the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor and by misstating Mr. Kishayinew’s position on sentencing in a material manner. The combination of the errors shows that there was an impact on sentence and appellate intervention is required.

The circumstances of this offence are extremely grave and Mr. Kishayinew’s lengthy criminal record is an aggravating factor with convictions of at least sixty-three prior offences dating back to 1996. At the time he committed the current offence, Mr. Kishayinew was on bail with an undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Mr. Kishayinew’s high risk to reoffend, generally and sexually, is also a relevant factor. Mr. Kishayinew’s actions in relation to this matter were reprehensible. He knew the woman was distraught, intoxicated and vulnerable and he took advantage of this situation to convince her that she was not safe but would be safe with him. Using this deception, he took her to his house where he sexually assaulted her. These actions speak to a high level of moral culpability.

Mr. Kishayinew, however, has considerable Gladue factors and these principles must be applied even in serious cases involving sexual violence (R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9). Even when the circumstances of a case unquestionably call for a penitentiary sentence, these factors remain relevant (R v Ratt, 2021 SKCA 7). He suffered extensive abuse from family members who suffered significant intergenerational trauma. Mr. Kishayinew has issues with substance abuse, but has completed grade 11 while incarcerated, and continues towards his GED. His personal supports and relationships are limited along with his employment history.

The gravity of the offence is severe and Mr. Kishayinew’s moral blameworthiness is high, although his moral culpability is somewhat tempered by Gladue factors. The appropriate sentence for this offence, for this offender, for the harm caused to this victim is four years with pre-sentence custody credit. The victim surcharge of $200, and the two days in default of payment for the victim surcharge, is set aside (R v Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58).

An Indigenous offender, after consideration of Gladue factors, was sentenced to 4 years for indecently assaulting a child between the years of 1974 and 1977 inclusive. The victim suffered lifelong impacts from the years of incidents that continues to effect his quality of life.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

R.O. was found guilty at trial for indecently assaulting M.L. from 1974 to 1977 inclusive, contrary to Section 156 of the Criminal Code. M.L. was almost 7 years of age at the start of the timeframe and nearly 11 years old at the end of it. The offender was in his early 20s and had been placed or adopted into M.L.’s wider family as an infant.

When he was 7, M.L. was looked after by his grandmother at her home and the offender would often be there for M.L.’s dinner and bath time. His grandmother ran the routine like clockwork, and the offender would often come in to the bathroom and sexually assault him in various disturbing acts. M.L. felt he had no choice but to go to his grandmother’s, and felt forced to cooperate. The acts were frequent, two to three times a week, and escalated in becoming more aggressive and intrusive over time. Eventually, M.L. discovered extracurricular activities which kept him away from his offender when he was near the age of 11. However, the impact of the abuse inflicted by the accused on M.L. has been profound and has lasted many years. He has trust issues and difficulties with personal relationships. As well, he has issues with substance abuse and suffers poor mental health.

The offender has a record of sexual offences involving young boys, with criminal convictions recorded against him in 1981, 1992, and 2014. The offender started professional counselling, but R.O.’s Community Corrections file indicates on past supervision that he maintained denial on all convictions, minimized his sexual offending and was highly resistant to attending or participating in any interventions targeted at his sexual offending. He continues to believe any interventions aimed at his sexual offending are not beneficial to him.

R.O., who is now 67 years of age, has significant Gladue factors. The report outlines that he is a member of a First Nation, near Lillooet, British Columbia. R.O. was reportedly apprehended by Ministry social workers at the age of two weeks when he was found at home without adequate supervision. The offender said he didn’t remember much of his childhood but had a clear recollection of being sexually assaulted by two teenaged boys at two different times when he was ten years of age. R.O has had limited education and some employment. He suffers from various mental illnesses and disorders.

Although there are significant Gladue factors of the offender, the significant factors and the gravity of the offence, including the profound wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual offences against children must also be taken into account. There was a life-long impact on this victim who was a child in primary school at the commencement of a period of prolonged offending by the offender. R.O. is sentenced to 4 years, with other ancillary orders.

The Court sentenced an Indigenous offender to 18 months custody for committing sexual assault and a breach of release order. A Pre-Sentence Report was considered, and the Court determined that the offender lacked insight into how the crime had negatively impacted the victim.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

Mr. GD pleaded guilty to sexual assault that occurred in 2018. At that time, he was 22-years-old and the complainant was 15-years-old. He has also pleaded guilty to a breach of a release order, by having contact with the complainant. The Crown sought a maximum sentence of 18 months for the sexual assault and a consecutive sentence of one month for the breach, followed by a Probation Order of two years. The defence sought an eight month sentence on the sexual assault and a non-custodial sentence on the breach.

The Court looked to the fundamental purpose and principle of sentencing and acknowledged that teenagers under the age of 16 require protection from unwanted, forced and premature sexual activity from adults or people more than five years older than them. Not only was the complainant incapable of consenting to engage in sexual activity because she was under the age of sixteen, but the moral culpability of a 22-year-old committing a sexual offence against someone of her age is high. Further, the complainant became pregnant and gave birth to the offender’s child at the age of sixteen.

The Court considered a Pre-Sentence Report which took into account the offender’s Indigeneity. His family history includes parental alcohol abuse and neglect, child protection intervention, poverty, inadequate food, a lack of a father figure, amongst others. The Report also indicated that he has a lack of insight into his offending behaviour that demonstrates an unsophisticated and dangerous view of women and girls.

It is mitigating that he pleaded guilty, saving the victim from a trial, as weel he has no criminal record and has taken anger management. It is aggravating that he lacks insight, there is a high risk of his reoffending, and the offence has resulted in a child who now has a single mother. The Court was of the view that the best method of deterring him in the future is to take sex offender treatment. However, the recommended program is not currently running due to COVID-19. The offender was sentenced with the hopes of the program running in the near future and to ensure he has enough time to apply and participate. In such a case, he will learn more about premature sexual activity and its negative impacts, the particular vulnerabilities of young, Indigenous girls, his own power and his probably unintentional exploitation of that power over young sexual partners.

The sentence on the sexual assault was one of 18 months custody and one week for the breach of the release order, followed by two years of supervised probation. After applying credit for time served, GD has 286 days remaining of his sentence.

Sentence appeal granted. An Indigenous accused who pleaded guilty to two counts of uttering threats, at separate times and places, had his sentence reduced to seven months as it appropriately factors in his considerable Gladue factors. The probationary aspect is undisturbed so he can find appropriate supports and services to address his alcoholism, homelessness and illiteracy.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

The Appellant, Mr. Blackduck, a Tłı̨chǫ man, pleaded guilty in Territorial Court to two counts of uttering threats, occurring at separate times and places. This matter is an appeal of his sentence. One incident involved the RCMP in Yellowknife when Mr. Blackduck was being arrested. Mr. Blackduck was subject to a probation order which, among other things, required him to remain a certain distance away from a Yellowknife liquor store. The RCMP officers were conducting a patrol when they saw him near the liquor store and warned him to move away. Mr. Blackduck, who was highly intoxicated at the time, was extremely aggressive and uttered violent threats even after he was subdued in the patrol car. The other incident happened at the Northern Store in Behchokǫ̀, where a store employee asked Mr. Blackduck to leave because he was banned from the location. He threatened to kill her and said he knew where she lived.

Mr. Blackduck has significant Gladue factors, and at the time of the sentencing hearing, he was homeless. When Mr. Blackduck is in Yellowknife, he stays at the men’s shelter and spends considerable time on the streets. When he is in Behchokǫ̀, which is where his family is, he stays either at the shelter or with his sister-in-law. Mr. Blackduck is unable to read and write in English, but has a strong connection to his Indigenous culture and was raised in a traditional background. However, substance abuse and violence were prevalent in his home growing up. Although Mr. Blackduck had made attempts to remedy his illiteracy, his housing instability posed great challenges, as he had no place to shower, wash his clothing or store his school books and supplies. There have been educational programs available to him while he has been in custody in the past, but he found it too embarrassing and did not want other prisoners to know he was illiterate.

With respect to the threat he made to the store clerk in Behchokǫ̀, Mr. Blackduck’s acknowledges that although he was banned from the store at the time, however on the day he made the threat, he needed money for food and the Northern Store was the only place where he could cash his government cheque. The alternative was to hitchhike to Yellowknife. When given his own opportunity to address the sentencing court, Mr. Blackduck expressed remorse for his conduct and spoke of his alcohol addiction.

Trial courts have wide discretion in the sentences they impose and that the standard of review on sentence appeals is a deferential one. An appellate court should only interfere with the sentence where: 1) the sentence is demonstrably unfit; 2) there is an error in principle; or 3) there is a failure to consider relevant sentencing factors (R v Shropshire, [1995] 4 SCR 227; R v Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 SCR 61; and R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 [“Lacasse”]). Where there is an error in principle, a failure to consider a relevant factor or an erroneous consideration of an aggravating or mitigating factor, appellate intervention will only be justified where it appears from the decision that the error had an effect on the sentence (Lacasse).

The Court is unable to conclude from the record that the sentencing judge adequately considered Mr. Blackduck’s Gladue factors in her sentencing analysis, as she did not ignore Mr. Blackduck’s Gladue factors entirely. The sentence imposed was within the acceptable range for uttering threats in the circumstances. Mr. Blackduck is addicted to alcohol. When he uses alcohol, he often engages in behaviours which lead to criminal charges and convictions. That is abundantly clear from his extensive criminal record.

However, Mr. Blackduck is unemployed, illiterate and homeless. He lacks resources to meet his basic needs and has nowhere near the support he needs to get a foothold to try and address his alcohol addiction. He does not even have the basic necessities in life because he has never really had a chance to attain them. He has faced systemic barriers and hardships his entire life, exacerbated by involvement in the criminal justice system. He is busy just surviving. This is a vicious cycle which diminishes his ability to make appropriate decisions about his conduct and to learn from the penal consequences of past conduct. It explains, to a large extent, his lengthy criminal record. All of this, in turn, diminishes his moral culpability that must be reflected in the sentence.

The Court determined a global sentence of 19 years for an Indigenous accused who was found guilty of 6 out of 7 counts of indictment that included home invasion, sexual assault of a 14 year old, and discharge of a firearm. He has credit for remand resulting in 15.65 years to be served in a federal penitentiary, to ensure the availability of appropriate programming.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

William David Angus, an Indigenous man from Thunderchild First Nation, was found guilty on six of the seven counts of the indictment, including entering the J. home with a rifle, sexually assaulting A.J., the 14-year-old, fleeing the scene, and shooting at the father, C.J., who was by then in pursuit (R v Angus, 2020 SKQB 32 [“Angus Conviction”]).

Following the conviction, an order was made for a pre-sentence report [“PSR”], with particular consideration of Gladue factors (R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688 [“Gladue”]; R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433 [“Ipeelee”]). Upon changes of counsel, and lengthy delays in receiving a  Gladue Report, a report on was filed and further information was outlined in a letter from the Report writer. In her submissions, it was emphasized the impact of intergenerational abuse and the tragic circumstances of Mr. Angus’ mother’s life. The supplemental PSR, provided background regarding the day school run by the Anglican Church on Onion Lake First Nation, which Mr. Angus attended as a young child. Mr. Angus also describes a lack of a sense of home or community and a pattern of transiency. Mr. Angus’ history and personal circumstances have been extremely difficult.

The significant harm a child experiences as a result of sexual violence and a high degree of moral blameworthiness attached to sexual violence against children are aggravating factors (R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9). Adolescent girls, such as the complainant in this case, are at particular risk for victimization. Accordingly, sentences must not be disproportionately low. A.J.’s age and the significant impact on both her and her family are also deemed aggravating factors. Further, the presence of the firearm during the assault coupled with A.J.’s young age bring s. 272(2)(a.2) of the Criminal Code into effect. This makes Mr. Angus liable “to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years”. An additional aggravating factor in the context of the home invasion is mandated by s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Angus would benefit from the programming available in the penitentiary, but the attitude he has exhibited is concerning. In contrast, Mr. Angus was just shy of 43 years of age when the crimes for which he is now being sentenced took place. He is now 45 years old. He also has a criminal record which includes, among other things, prior convictions under s. 348(1)(b) for break and enter and commission of an indictable offence therein. Mr. Angus’ focus over the months since his conviction has been on the pursuit of a Gladue Report, even to the point of being uncooperative with the PSR writer, as noted in Angus Gladue. Mr. Angus’ failure to acknowledge both his responsibility for his actions and his need for help in addressing the underlying issues is of concern. It would be beneficial and rehabilitative for him to avail himself of programming.