Tag Archives: Indigenous

RF v Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services, 2020 ONCJ 366

Posted on by
Reply

Counsel for a foster parent in a child protection matter was removed from the record based on his prior representation of the child protection agency respondent. The Court took into account the overall negative relationship between Indigenous peoples and the justice system in relation to the need to respect an Indigenous person’s choice of counsel, but held that intervention is necessary in clear cases of conflict in order to mitigate this crisis of confidence. 

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

An Anishinaabe child [“NLJ”], a registered band member of Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory [“Wiikwemkoong”], was removed at birth from the care of her parents by the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County [“CAS”] and a protection application commenced. The child has significant physical needs that require specialized care both at home and at school. NLJ was placed with the applicant [“RF”] on this protection application proceeding, and who was, at that time, a recognized foster home and the placement was monitored by the CAS. The file was ultimately transferred to Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services [“KGCFS”] and the applicant continued to provide a foster placement for NLJ.

NLJ was made a crown ward under the Child and Family Services Act and remained in RF’s care. Wiikwemkoong passed a Band Council Resolution which provided that NLJ remain in the home of RF pursuant to a Customary Care Agreement. Wiikwemkoong and KGCFS have a “Joint Protocol” [“Protocol”] with respect to the provision of child protection services, which includes Customary Care. The Protocol outlines the relationship between Wiikwemkoong and KGCFS and their inherent right to be involved in decision making on child protection issues.

Mr. Parisé was the primary lawyer retained by the respondent society, KGCFS, for child protection matters when the Customary Care Agreement was finalized. Because of the Protocol, KGCFS is necessarily a party to that agreement. In 2016, the Crown Wardship Order was terminated following a status review application commenced by KGCFS. The existence of the Customary Care Agreement was the basis for the application. Of note, Mr. Parisé was counsel for KGCFS at the time and counsel of record in that proceeding.

The child remained in the home of RF under this Agreement until 2019 when NLJ was removed by KGCFS and placed in another customary care home. The Customary Care Agreement between KF, Wiikwemkoong, KGCFS, and the biological parents of NLJ was terminated sometime thereafter. It was at this time that Mr. Parisé started acting as counsel of record for RF. Mr. Parisé represented RF who filed a status review which was ultimately dismissed without prejudice to the applicant bringing an application under s 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act [“CYFSA”]. RF then filed a protection application. KGCFS brought a motion to remove Mr. Parisé as counsel of record a month later, which was the first time the issue of potential conflict was raised with the Court.

On March 16, 2020, the Office of the Chief Justice released a Notice to the Public ordering the suspension of normal court operations in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, RF’s application was adjourned, and with it, KGCFS’s motion. Subsequently, the Customary Care placement was revoked when the respondent mother withdrew her consent but did not seek custody at that time. NLJ no longer had a customary care placement and KGCFS commenced their own protection application without naming RF as a party. After dealing with the initial removal to a place of safety, the court remanded both matters to the same date to be spoken to in order to deal with jurisdictional issues arising out of the fact that there are now two separate child protection applications dealing with the same child, and which do not have all the same parties. The parties on both applications agreed that this motion would need to be heard first before other substantive issues could be addressed.

The jurisdiction to remove counsel is found in the inherent right of the court to determine “to whom it will give an audience” and that the threshold for court intervention should be high (Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society v BD, 2013 ONCJ 43). The test that the courts have developed for determining if counsel should be removed is whether the public, represented by the reasonably informed person, would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur (MacDonald Estate v Martin, [1990] 3 SCR 1235 [“MacDonald”]).

Counsel of choice is a foundational principle in the Canadian justice system. It is well established that a litigant should not be deprived of their counsel of choice without good cause. However, this principle is not absolute. The issue in this motion is whether a lawyer who acted on behalf of a society on a child protection file can now represent one of the other parties in a subsequent protection application. The Court determines in this case, that the conflict is one which should disqualify the lawyer from continuing to act on the matter and the lawyer be removed from the record. The courts owe a duty to the Indigenous people they serve to intervene in the clear cases of conflict, in order to mitigate this crisis of confidence.

R v Neasloss, 2020 BCPC 161

Posted on by
Reply

The Court accepted a joint proposal for a 10-month conditional sentence served in the community for possession of child pornography. The Court did express misgivings with the absence of any independent or expert evidence in the record to justify the proposal as no Gladue report, pre-sentence report, or psychiatric assessment was obtained. The proposal was accepted, however, due to the high standard for any judicial departure from a joint submission on sentence.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

Tyler Eugene Neasloss was charged with distributing and possessing child pornography contrary to the Criminal Code. At the sentencing hearing the Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence comprising of a ten-month conditional sentence [“CSO”], three years’ probation and four ancillary orders. The Court questioned whether a non-custodial sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the offence and offender. Although, not convinced a CSO gives proper effect to the sentencing principles of parity and proportionality, the Court is bound by the Supreme Court of Canada’s directive that trial judges are to follow joint submissions in all but the rarest of cases. The Court can only depart from a joint submission if it is so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that 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).

In 2018, Facebook, a United States social media corporation, reported the transmission of suspected child pornography to the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children [“NCMEC”]. The following day, NCMEC reported the transmission to the BC Integrated Child Exploitation [“ICE”] Unit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [“RCMP”]. The BC-ICE Unit determined that two images sent by a Facebook user met the definition of child pornography and forwarded a report to the New Hazelton RCMP detachment. The Facebook user had used an identifying IP address. The RCMP obtained and executed a search warrant at a residence, at which time they arrested Mr. Neasloss. The RCMP seized several items from Mr. Neasloss’ bedroom. Mr. Neasloss confessed to possessing child pornography and viewing images of pre-pubescent boys and girls performing various sexual acts. He denied ever touching a child sexually, expressed shame and wrote a written apology to his family for what he has done.

Mr. Neasloss was 30 years old at the time of the offence and has no criminal record. Mr. Neasloss is a member of the Gitxsan Nation. In Grade 8, while attending Skeena Junior Secondary School, Mr. Neasloss left school, never to return. He lives a narrow, lonely and solitary life with his father, where he stays home, watches television and is not otherwise socially engaged. Mr. Neasloss does not drink or smoke or use drugs. He has no friends or intimate partners, past or present, no children, does not work and has a negligible work history. Mr. Neasloss lives on social assistance and although he might qualify for a disability pension, he is unable to navigate the application process.

Typically, before imposing sentence on an offender convicted of possessing child pornography, the trial judge has the benefit of a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric and psychological risk assessment. When the offender is Indigenous, the court often receives a Gladue report, In this case, the Court has no such reports. There is no Gladue report and only a faint thumbnail sketch of Mr. Neasloss’ personal history. The Court, however, is acutely aware of the challenges facing Indigenous people in this region. The systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous people in Canadian society have likely impacted Mr. Neasloss’ life in such a way as to diminish his moral culpability.

The Court does not know the nature or severity of Mr. Neasloss’s asserted psychological, cognitive and social impairments. Apparently, he has the intellectual skills to navigate the dark web to access child pornography, and the psychological dysfunction to do so. Both counsel, however, argue that sentencing ought to proceed in the absence of presentence reports or psychological assessments in order to minimize delay and expedite Mr. Neasloss’s access to treatment. Both counsel are experienced and clearly considered the systemic benefits of Mr. Neasloss’s guilty plea to justify a non-custodial sentence. The crafting of the sentence endeavours to protect the community from the risk of Mr. Neasloss reoffending through a combination of rehabilitative and restrictive conditions contained in various court orders. The Court endorses the joint submission as advocated by counsel.

R v Hoshal, 2020 ONCJ 345

Posted on by
Reply

The Indigenous defendant breached a Long Term Supervision Order on two separate accounts by consuming prohibited substances. This resulted in just one additional day in custody based on credit for pre-sentence custody and the collateral consequences of COVID-19 in the Toronto South Detention Centre, including the suspension of culturally appropriate programming and activities. Gladue factors contextualized his youth criminal record and indicated a need for restraint.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

Mr. Hoshal has pled guilty to two separate counts of breaching the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order [“LTSO”]. Both breaches involved the consumption of substances prohibited by this order. His risk of violent future re-offence is directly linked to whether he can abstain from the consumption of alcohol and drugs. Breaching an LTSO is not like breaching probation or bail. It is met with significant jail terms. The public loses confidence in the judicial system when offenders breach court-ordered terms. He has been detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Mr. Hoshal’s childhood was mired in trauma, abandonment, and abuse. Mr. Hoshal is forty years old and has a serious criminal record that includes approximately 25 convictions for domestic violence, all rooted in substance misuse and abuse. Mr. Hoshal is a non-status Blackfoot on his father’s side. Upon discovering this Indigenous heritage, he attempted to learn more about it on his own. He twice moved onto a reserve, only to feel isolated and singled out, sometimes violently, because he appeared “white”. The information he has managed to obtain about his Indigenous heritage has largely come from programs in jail. Otherwise, he has been disconnected from his Indigenous culture.

Mr. Hoshal’s punishment must be tempered as much as possible without displacing the fitness of the sentence, by the exercise of restraint. In order to rehabilitate oneself, hope is necessary. The conditions of Mr. Hoshal’s presentence custody, including the COVID-19 consequences, have amplified anxiety and stress, isolated him from supports, and caused him to lose hope. The harsh presentence custody conditions at the TSDC upon Mr. Hoshal personally, and the impact of COVID-19 adds to the already deplorable conditions. Mr. Hoshal’s global sentence of 14 months less presentence custody remains fit and within the range.

Southeast Collegiate Inc v Laroque, 2020 FC 820

Posted on by
Reply

Application allowed. A Canada Labour Adjudicator committed an error of law by failing to apply the correct legal test to determine if he had jurisdiction to hear an employee’s wrongful dismissal complaint. He erroneously concluded the presumption of provincial regulation of labour relations had been rebutted based on a provision of the Indian Act, the identity of the students, and the program’s emphasis on cultural sensitive education.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

The Court allowed an application for judicial review from a Canada Labour Adjudicator’s decision that the Southeast Collegiate Inc. is a federal undertaking to which the Canada Labour Code [“CLC”] applies. This corporate entity was created by the Southeast Tribal Council to deliver culturally sensitive high school education to Indigenous students from across Manitoba.

The Respondent complained under the CLC that she was wrongfully dismissed. She therefore bore the onus to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption of provincial authority. The Adjudicator addressed the two issues put forward regarding jurisdiction and the dismissal of the Respondent. Ultimately the Adjudicator found that the facts set out in the termination letter were proven and that the dismissal of the Respondent was justified. He also determined that the Applicant was a federal undertaking to which the CLC applies [“Decision”]. The Applicant does not challenge any of the fact-finding in the Decision. The Applicant seeks judicial review because it maintains that, in light of the relevant jurisprudence, it is not a federal undertaking for the purpose of employment.

It has been acknowledged that strictly speaking, this issue is not a genuine constitutional one as it is not concerned with whether a particular statute is intra or ultra vires the constitutional authority of the enabling government. However, there is a rebuttable presumption that labour relations are a matter of provincial jurisdiction (NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services Society v BC Government and Service Employees’ Union, 2010 SCC 45 [“NIL/TU,O”]; Treaty 8 Tribal Association v Barley, 2016 FC 1090).

The Applicant established and operates a high school for Indigenous students with classes for grades 10, 11 and 12. The school draws students from sixteen Indigenous communities across Manitoba. It serves all of Manitoba but is targeted to those communities that do not have their own local high school. The school is located in the City of Winnipeg. Students are required to live in campus dormitories during the school year except during holiday periods.

The Southeast Tribal Council and the Federal Government of Canada are parties to an annual contribution agreement to fund the operation of the school. It provides funding for the operation of the Applicant and pays the tuition and boarding fees for each Indigenous student. While the Federal Government funding is the primary source of money received by the Applicant, non-Indigenous students are allowed to attend the school if they pay the annual tuition.

Although the school is not governed by The Public Schools Act of Manitoba, the Applicant’s teachers are required to hold a Provincial Teaching Certificate. The compulsory provincial high school courses are offered by the Applicant. The annual contribution agreement requires that the Applicant follow the Manitoba Ministry of Education Curriculum in order to receive the funding. Course curricula are accredited and provided by the province of Manitoba. As a result, graduating students receive a high school diploma that is recognized by the Manitoba Board of Education and by post-secondary institutions.

In NIL/TU,O, the Supreme Court indicated that the functional test “calls for an inquiry into the nature, habitual activities and daily operations of the entity in question to determine whether it constitutes a federal undertaking” (NIL/TU,O). The Adjudicator was required to consider the functional test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in NIL/TU,O and, in doing so, he had to correctly apply it. The Adjudicator did neither. Because the Adjudicator found that it did not arise, there is no indication in the Decision that the presumption of provincial authority over this Applicant’s labour relations with the Respondent was rebutted. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the Province of Manitoba had jurisdiction over the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent. Instead of applying the functional test, the Adjudicator substituted his own view that the presumption did not arise. In that respect, the Decision is based on an error of law.

R v Kuliktana, 2020 NUCA 7

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal allowed. The sentence on the Appellant is altered as proposed by the joint submission. In this appeal, emphasis was placed on the role of Gladue factors to help justify a joint submission for a sentence that appeared to be lower than appropriate. Inferences were made in the absence of direct information, as a Gladue Report was not available.

Indigenous Law Centre CaseWatch Blog

The Appellant, a 27-year-old Inuk man from the Hamlet of Kugluktuk, in the Kitikmeot Region of Nunavut, entered guilty pleas to one count of assault and one count of unlawful confinement. The Crown elected to proceed by summary conviction on both counts and pleas were entered after resolution discussions. The joint submission for a fit sentence was 120 days in custody, less credit for the 58 days the Appellant had spent in pre-sentence custody to that date, leaving 33 days to serve along with a probation order of 12 months.

The sentencing judge resisted the joint submission and called upon counsel to provide more information and a more elaborate rationale. The Appellant remained in custody in the meantime for almost 3 months. The sentencing judge then rejected the joint submission and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 180 days on the count of assault which he described as “time served” and 60 days concurrent on the count of unlawful confinement also described as “time served”. In addition, the sentencing judge directed a probation order for a period of 12 months, with conditions, including performance of 50 hours of community service work.

The Appellant on this appeal submits that his sentence has been completed, but that his appeal is not moot because the entry on his criminal record will be higher than it should have been. The Appellant had an unstable childhood due to his family’s inability to settle in one community. He has a significant criminal record, including convictions in 2014 and 2015 for analogous “domestic assault” offences. His counsel attributes the Appellant’s criminal record at least in part to the criminogenic factors of alcohol and a lack of stable housing.

Regrettably, there was no Gladue report prepared to further illuminate what other factors may have contributed to his difficulty in maintaining a prosocial conduct pattern (R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688). It has been said repeatedly that this type of information is not to provide a special exemption in sentencing but rather is directly related to locating a proportional sentence having regard to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender under s 718.1 of the Criminal Code. It is an error to proceed on the basis that Gladue factors do or do not justify departure from a proportionate sentence (R v Swampy, 2017 ABCA 134). Rather, they direct the sentencing court’s attention to circumstances that help to identify a proportionate sentence.

In this instance, it is a matter of conjecture as to what influence more Gladue information might have had on counsel or the Court. But it is possible to draw some inferences from what was provided about the Appellant’s circumstances. Often it is a matter of common-sense inference as to how the offender’s life has reached the point where the offender’s reactions to problems tends to breach social norms. In determining whether a proposed joint submission sentence for an offender seems unfit, the sentencing court should consider how Gladue factors might fit in to the situation.

When the Crown chooses to enter into a plea arrangement with an offender (by counsel) that is a solemn business, and it is not just clearing court backlog in some bureaucratic sense. Whether a sentencing court should harbor doubt about the utilitarian benefits of plea agreements and joint submissions, there cannot be similar doubt about the linkage between the Crown taking a consistent, reliable and predictable position and the Rule of Law.

The sentencing judge’s mention of what he felt did not reconcile the joint submission with his unexplained conceptualization of a fit sentence for the Appellant’s crimes came down to rejection of the joint submission on a basis subjectively held by him. It was not a manifestation of the principled override of a joint submission contemplated by, or consistent with, the guidance and policies in R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. Accordingly, the failure of the sentencing judge to explain what was wrong with the joint submission was a flaw with more than one dimension. It is not discernible what, if any, comparators or prior authority or guidance the sentencing judge was relying on, and it would not have been a demonstration of “public interest” error if the only discrepancy of the joint submission were that it did not fit the sentencing judge’s own practice.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Elizabeth Métis Settlement, 2020 ABQB 210

Posted on by
Reply

Application allowed. A Métis community’s Property Tax Bylaw is quashed as it is unlawfully enacted and unreasonable in substance.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

Elizabeth Métis Settlement [“Elizabeth”] is a small Métis community on the eastern edge of Alberta. In 2019, Elizabeth levied property taxes amounting to 187% of assessed land value on four natural resource companies whose lands comprise virtually its entire taxable base. Elizabeth explained that its unusual procedures in enacting it were justified by a looming financial emergency, and that the context of Alberta’s Métis settlements uniquely informs the question of what constitutes a reasonable rate of taxation in this situation.

In 1984, a movement began towards securing lands to support Métis communities in Alberta attaining self-governance. This consultation ultimately led to the Alberta-Métis Settlements Accord in 1989. This framework agreement and related legislation created eight Métis settlement [“Métis Settlements”] and granted fee simple title to those lands to the Métis Settlements General Council [“MSGC”]. This process also led to the incorporation of the Métis people in the Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act, which recognized that the Métis people were to gain self-governance, and protected their land base with the specific stated aim of preserving and enhancing Métis culture and identity. The Métis Settlements Act [“MSA”], was brought into force to provide a structure of delegated authority by which these communities could govern themselves individually, and collectively through the MSGC.

The top level of Métis governance established by the MSA is the MSGC. This umbrella body creates policies from which each of the Settlements derive sub-delegated authority to run their own communities. The individual Métis Settlements, in practice, operate at a quasi-municipal level. While their existence has a deeper social, cultural and historical underpinning than ordinary municipal corporations, they perform many of the same functions of a local municipal government common to municipalities across the province. Similar to municipalities, the sole source of tax revenue for the Settlements is through property taxation. Due to the structure of land holding on the Settlements, however, Elizabeth appears to have only four taxpayers, including the Applicants in this case.

Métis Settlements first gained independent taxation powers in 1997. Prior to that, any taxation was subject to direct ministerial approval. MSGC policy defines the parameters of Settlement taxation powers and the process for property assessment. Each Settlement in turn is left to pass its own property tax bylaw. In 1997, the MSGC enacted a tax policy to establish a fair, orderly, and equitable system by which those who use land in a Settlement area for business purposes can be required to contribute a fair share, based on valuation or agreement, to the cost of maintaining a viable Métis community in the Settlement area. The 1997 policy permitted Settlements to make annual business property contribution bylaws, and levy property tax based on the deemed value of land holdings, with a cap tax rate.

In 2019, the basis and structure of property taxation within the Métis Settlements changed fundamentally. The MSGC revoked the 1997 policy and replaced it with a new instrument called the Métis Settlements General Council Property Taxation Policy 2018 [“Tax Policy”]. There was no cap identified on Settlement property tax rates and no mention of “fair, orderly, and equitable” contributions being required by businesses operating on Settlement lands. The Tax Policy specified a new formula by which the tax rate was to be calculated. It is based on dividing its total budget by the value of its assessed taxable base. Each Settlement was to determine its tax rate by dividing its budget by the total value of its tax base.

The net result of the Amended Budget, by operation of the formula was to increase the total property tax bill levied against the four Applicants from $624,692.44 to $25,000,733. In short, it increased the Applicants’ property tax bills 40-fold. This additional $24.4 million from the Applicant taxpayers was allocated to repair or replace virtually all infrastructure at the Elizabeth Settlement, including $75,000 in repairs and renovations to each and every residence in the community.

There is no evidence that Elizabeth considered the economic impact or viability of this rate of taxation. This includes a complete absence of discussion on whether taxes in this amount could possibly be paid, and what the economic and legal impact on the subject landowners would be. The Applicants were never given an opportunity to provide an economic analysis of the impact of this level of taxation on their operations and their ability to continue owning their land interests in Elizabeth. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed the common law right of citizens to seek judicial review of municipal bylaws taxing their property (Catalyst Paper Corp v North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2).

Métis Settlements are not completely analogous to municipal governments. They may well be afforded different and greater range in decision-making that touches upon the core animating values that underlie their existence, namely the preservation and promotion of Métis culture and society. That said, when Settlements levy property tax, they perform a function virtually indistinguishable from municipal governments, and derive their authority to do so through a similar process of sub-delegation. Moreover, the power they exercise in this capacity is no less impactful on the people against whom it is used.

Even if the Property Tax Bylaw was upheld in the face of its procedural defects, it is substantively unreasonable and must be quashed on that basis. Although unreasonable, it did not come about in a vacuum. The evidence in this case also showed that Elizabeth’s infrastructure need is very real, and that the stated aim of creating self-sufficient Métis communities has been thwarted by chronic capital underfunding.

The Court finds the impugned Property Tax Bylaw is the product of Métis frustration with the failure to achieve this objective. Ironically, the lack of adequate capital funding for Métis Settlements, or a viable model for the Settlements to raise capital funds through economic benefits derived on their territory, has driven Elizabeth to enact a measure that would severely, if not fatally, impair its ability to attract the investment it needs to develop a viable tax base in the future.

R v Itturiligaq, 2020 NUCA 6

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal allowed. The mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment of four years is not a grossly disproportionate sentence for this offence and this offender.  The Indigenous accused is now finished the custodial portion of his sentence and is well into his probation, therefore the sentence of imprisonment is stayed.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

A 24-year-old Inuit man and traditional hunter for country food, who had lived his entire life in Nunavut, intentionally fired his hunting rifle at the roofline of a house he knew to be occupied. The single bullet exited the roof and caused no injuries. He was charged with intentionally discharging a firearm at a place, contrary to s 244.2(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was interviewed by the RCMP and took full responsibility for his actions. He told police that on the day of the incident he had been upset that his girlfriend had not been spending enough time with him and their small daughter. He was angry that she had gone to her friend’s place without telling him and that she refused to leave with him. He told police that he only took one shot and was not trying to aim the gun at anybody, as he knew that he is not supposed to do so.

No formal Gladue report was prepared, but it is clear that some Gladue factors were relevant to the accused’s background. He and his family described that he had a good upbringing. The accused had no known history of residential schooling in his family’s background. He was in good physical health, save a hearing deficit and the need for hearing aids, a condition also shared by his father. While history of colonialism and its intergenerational effects must be acknowledged, the Gladue factors in this case do not operate to significantly diminish the high level of moral culpability underlying this offence.

The accused, who had no criminal record, entered an early guilty plea. He successfully challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum punishment, on the basis that it violated s 12 of the Charter (R v Itturiligaq, 2018 NUCJ 31). The accused was ordered a custodial sentence of slightly less than two years, with credit for pre-trial remand, followed by two years probation.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the accused as demonstrably unfit, and the court’s declaration that s 244.2(3)(b) is unconstitutional. While not joined, this appeal was heard at the same time as the oral hearing in R v Ookowt, 2020 NUCA 5 [“Ookowt”], which also involved a declaration that s 244.2(3)(b) was unconstitutional pursuant to s 12 of the Charter. As stated in Ookowt, both of these appeals arose as a result of young men resorting to the use of hunting rifles in response to what they believed to be personal slights or problems in their personal lives. The appeal is allowed, and the court’s declaration of s 244.2(3)(b) is set aside.

R v Ookowt, 2020 NUCA 5

Posted on by
Reply

Appeal allowed. The declaration of unconstitutionality of a mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the sentencing judge is set aside, and a four-year penitentiary term is substituted. Significant time has elapsed since the Indigenous accused was sentenced – and who now has finished that sentence, therefore the sentence of imprisonment is stayed.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

A 19 year old Inuit man, in retaliation for being bullied, fired a bullet into a house, which shattered a window and missed striking a man by inches. The accused entered a guilty plea to intentionally discharging a firearm into a place knowing that or being reckless as to whether another person was present, contrary to s 244.2(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The mandatory minimum sentence for this offence is four years.

At the sentencing hearing, a Notice of Constitutional Challenge was filed by the Defence arguing that the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate to a fit sentence for this offence and this offender, contrary to s 12 of the Charter. The sentencing judge determined that a fit sentence for the accused was two years less one day, plus one year of probation, and the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence in this case would result in a sentence that is double the appropriate sentence (R v Ookowt, 2017 NUCJ 22). The Crown appeals to this Court, contending the sentencing judge failed to properly assess the gravity of this offence and that the accused’s conduct warranted the four year mandatory minimum sentence.

It is common for those who live in Nunavut’s communities to own rifles. They are used for subsistence hunting, supporting a traditional way of life. Sadly, this also means they are often readily accessible for unlawful and dangerous purposes such as intimidation, revenge, domestic violence, and retaliation.

This Court concludes that the sentencing judge committed errors in principle by imposing a disproportionate and demonstrably unfit sentence. Further, it is concluded that the four year mandatory minimum sentence under s 244.2(3)(b) is not a grossly disproportionate sentence for this offence and this offender. The Court sets aside the sentencing judge’s declaration that the imposition of the four year mandatory minimum sentence would breach the accused’s s 12 Charter rights.

In the Court’s view, the sentencing judge underemphasized the accused’s high moral blameworthiness for this offence, and overemphasized intoxication, bullying and Gladue factors. As a result, the sentencing court failed to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence in reaching a sentence that was ultimately disproportionate and unfit in all of the circumstances. The sentencing judge did not provide any persuasive reasons for imposing a sentence that did not address the well-established seriousness of this firearm offence, and failure to do so was an error (R v Mala, 2018 NUCA 2). In sum, an offender who commits the offence of intentionally discharging a firearm into a place, knowing or being reckless as to whether anyone is in that place, is guilty of significant morally blameworthy conduct.

The accused’s admitted act of “extreme premeditated violence is completely disproportionate to any reasonable and measured response to the bullying he suffered”. It was sheer luck that his bullet did not hit and kill either of the two men in the house, only one being the target of his “warning”. Gladue considerations do not significantly reduce the accused’s moral blameworthiness in this matter (R v Swampy, 2017 ABCA 134).

The trial judge found the accused did not have a disadvantaged upbringing, nor does there appear to be a history of family violence, displacement, residential schooling or “constrained circumstances” (R v Ipeelee, [2012] 2 CNLR 218). Rather, the accused enjoyed a culture-centred and close family upbringing throughout his life. He is both intelligent and educated, communicating in both English (written and oral) and Inuktitut (oral). He opted to leave formal schooling to pursue his vocation as a traditional hunter, earning a living from the land by selling furs and supporting his family and community with the country food he harvested, and by keeping their machines and dog teams in good order. While a history of colonialism must be taken into account, including substance abuse and suicide in this matter, it is difficult to identify any background factors that greatly diminish the accused’s moral blameworthiness for this serious firearm offence, at least to the extent found by the sentence judge to “temper the usual deterrence sentence” by more than two years.

R v Kapolak, 2020 NWTTC 12

Posted on by
Reply

The NWT Territorial Court found a provision for sexual assault against a minor under the Criminal Code to breach s 12 of the Charter and therefore declined to apply it and ordered a conditional sentence for an Inuk offender with FASD.

Indigenous Law Centre
Indigenous CaseWatch Blog

This decision bears in mind the cognitive challenges associated with FASD with the Indigenous accused. It had to balance between the protection of Indigenous victims and the need to implement the Gladue principles for Indigenous offenders. Like provincial courts, the territorial court cannot strike down any provisions but it may become a persuasive precedent for other courts in the territories and elsewhere.

This case involved a single incident, and the victim suffered no apparent injury. This was a bold act, committed on a residential street, in the daytime, as opposed to a surreptitious act committed behind closed doors, on a sleeping victim, or in a context where the victim is physically isolated and cannot get away from the perpetrator. The victim initially did not feel threatened by the accused, because she was familiar with him, and likely because of his diminutive size and almost child-like appearance. But the accused then touched the victim’s body many times and in many places, and he failed to disengage when prompted verbally by her. She had to resort to physical violence to make him stop. This was a crime of opportunity, committed on impulse. The victim was in foster care at the time of the incident. She did not file a Victim Impact Statement, but it is inferred that she is from Inuit ancestry from her name.

Because the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months applies to all offenders having committed any form of sexual assault on a victim aged anywhere between 1 day and 16 years, it is vulnerable to Charter scrutiny. Imposing a sentence of six months in jail on this accused who is a first offender when there are many mitigating factors and when the circumstances of the offence, while being serious, are not too egregious, is fundamentally unfair and as a result, disproportionate. As a result, the accused’s right to be protected against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is infringed by the mandatory minimum punishment found at section 271(b) of the Criminal Code. The provision is not saved by section 1 of the Charter, and accordingly the mandatory minimum punishment is declined.

The presence of an intellectual disability that affects the accused’s cognitive functions makes it difficult to assess the risk to reoffend. Although present, and in light of other circumstances, the risk is not viewed as high, or determinative. However, the offence of sexual assault is prevalent in Northern communities, 5.3 times the national ratio in 2017. The accused’s early guilty plea is highly mitigating, as it spared the victim from having to testify in court.

The personal circumstances of the accused, which include the diagnosis of Alcohol-Related Neuro-Developmental Disorder, suggest a reduced moral blameworthiness. For a first offender, sentencing usually focuses on rehabilitation. There is nothing to say that a community-based sentence would not work for this accused. The risk to reoffend that this accused presents because of the impulsivity associated with his condition, as well as his intellectual limitation, is compensated by the fact that he benefits from family support. He has a home in which supervision may occur, and he has shown that he is able to comply with conditions.

For an offender with challenges to his executive functions, repetition of instructions, structure, and professional follow-up, appear to be key. A carefully crafted conditional sentence order can bring the necessary restrictions to a person’s freedom while providing rehabilitative tools, and thus achieve deterrence.

The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the standard for finding that a sentence represents a cruel and unusual punishment is that it be grossly disproportionate. An option to preserve the constitutionality of offences that cast a wide net is to provide for residual judicial discretion to impose a fit and constitutional sentence in exceptional cases (R v Lloyd, 2016 1 RCS 13).

In this case, the offender presents with cognitive challenges, and is sentenced more than one year after the commission of the offence. The immediate link between consequence and cause may be lost and as a result a sentence of imprisonment may not achieve the necessary deterrence. Reducing the over-incarceration of Aboriginal offenders is as important an objective as that of protecting vulnerable victims, and must be given equal consideration. The accused is to serve a conditional sentence of imprisonment of 120 days, to be followed by a period of probation of 18 months.

R v Campbell, 2020 NUCJ 28

Posted on by
Reply

The fact that programming is on hold during the pandemic is taken into account with sentencing in two ways: 1) in determining how much credit to allocate based on pre-trial custody; and 2) in assessing a fit term for a prison sentence, as collateral consequences of any period of incarceration that would make it harsher.

Indigenous Law Centre – CaseWatch Blog

In Nunavut, and elsewhere, it seems like most Indigenous programming in prison has been put on hold for months, including the examples of Elder counselling and family visits. Mr. Campbell plead guilty to a string of charges all committed in Iqaluit. A Pre-Sentence Report was ordered. Unfortunately, the date for his sentencing was cancelled by the COVID-19 pandemic effect on the operation of Court Services.

Following his time in custody, Mr. Campbell will be given a probation order for 18 months, to help his rehabilitation. In assessing his sentence, the Court considered the fundamental principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. Over a period of almost six months, Mr. Campbell assaulted five separate individuals in four separate locations across Iqaluit, from well-known businesses to private residences. Each individual offence was relatively low on the gravity scale. However, two of the offences are statutorily aggravating because of the young age of one victim and the domestic nature of the previous relationship with another victim.

The Court must also consider the purpose of sentencing set out in s. 718 which is to impose just sanctions that have one or more of these objectives: denunciation, deterrence of the offender and others, separation if necessary, rehabilitation, reparation and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders. Mr. Campbell’s guilty plea shows he is taking responsibility for these offences and intends to work on rehabilitating himself. The pre-sentence report outlined some Gladue factors that also need to be considered in this case, per s. 718.2(e).

Mr. Campbell has now been in custody for a little over five months and is entitled to credit for that time. The issue is whether and how to account for the effect of COVID-19 on prison conditions and what, if any, sentencing considerations should be made on account of such conditions. Time in custody during the current pandemic, depending on public health and geographic realities, may be harsher time in custody than usual. This is so not only because authorities have put in place restrictions to try to keep inmates safe, but also because of the general uncertainty about the present and future wellbeing of individuals and society.

These changes due to the pandemic are to protect inmates and staff at the institution, where public health measures such as social distancing are not readily available. Protecting the inmates and staff then also protects the public in Iqaluit. The measures are imposed even though the Territory continues to be “COVID free” because that status could change at any time. In Nunavut where programming is often available for prisoners, punishment is also increased by loss of programs as well as family visits. These restrictions will continue going forward.

Mr. Campbell’s time spent in custody will be harsher for an unknown period of time. He has been given the maximum allowable amount of credit for his pre-sentence custody. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to reduce Mr. Campbell’s sentence going forward by 60 days because of the harsher conditions of his incarceration.