Supreme Court

R. v. Laviolette, 2003 NWTSC 26
Date: 20030529
Docket: S-1-CR2002000068

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- vs. -


LEE TODD LAVIOLETTE


Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable Justice J.E. Richard, at Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, on May 16th A.D., 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Mr. A. Fox:   Counsel for the Crown

Mr. J. Brydon:   Counsel for the Accused


Charge under s. 273, s. 279(2), s. 270(1) Criminal Code.


Ban on Publication of Complainant/ Witness Pursuant to Section 486 of the Criminal Code.


THE COURT:   Lee Todd Laviolette is convicted of sexual assault. The maximum penalty is ten years' imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. Mr. Laviolette's crime was a particularly egregious one, and I have given careful consideration to an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Laviolette is an aboriginal person of 35 years of age, and I am told that he originally is from Fort Chipewyan in the province of Alberta. At the time of committing this offence in June of 2002, he was living in Yellowknife and working in a convenience store. I understand that he is single but I am told that he has three children who live in Saskatchewan including daughters, 6 years and 9 years of age.

Since the age of 18, Mr. Laviolette has compiled a lengthy criminal record. That record includes eight or nine convictions for crimes of violence. As recently as December 1999, he was convicted of sexual assault in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and received a sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The present offence of sexual assault for which Mr. Laviolette is being sentenced today occurred on June 6th, 2002. The victim was a 23-year-old woman who had just arrived in Yellowknife two days earlier. She arrived here from Saskatchewan to join her parents in an employment opportunity as a caregiver.

On the night of June 5th, she had been in the

[Page 1]

bars in Yellowknife and at closing time, she left a pub and was about to get into a taxi with some new friends when she was approached by this offender Lee Todd Laviolette. The offender cautioned her against getting in the taxi with these other people and indicated that he would take her home. The victim, who was intoxicated, went with the offender, who was also intoxicated.

The victim, being new to Yellowknife, did not know where the offender was taking her. He took her a few blocks away from the main part of town to a rocky and bushy area near the Prince of Wales museum. There he threw her to the ground and despite her struggling and her plea for him to stop, he raped her not once but twice.

This was a particularly cruel, callous, and brutal rape.

The victim was able to escape after the second rape and after the offender had passed out. Within a short time, she had told the police what had happened, and the police found the offender still passed out at the scene of the crime. He was arrested and has been in custody since that time.

The victim was taken to hospital and treated for her injuries. She had many scratches and bruises and also vaginal bleeding. She was suffering from severe emotional trauma.

[Page 2]

From the reading of her Victim Impact Statement on the Court file, she continues to suffer severe emotional trauma. As with many rape victims, it is quite likely that the memories of this terrible event will remain with her for the rest of her life.

I will just state for the record that although I have also read the other statements on the Court file that apparently were written by the victim's parents and relatives, those other statements are not considered by me in the determination of an appropriate sentence for this offender. Although these written statements are labelled “Victim Impact Statements”, they are not Victim Impact Statements within the meaning of Section 722 of the Criminal Code.

With respect to the victim herself, it is the Court's sincere hope that within time and the help of professional people and her family that she will make some progress in putting this horrible ordeal behind her and getting on with a normal life.

The sentence that the Court imposes today, or even a much longer sentence, would have no direct relationship to the speed of the victim's recovery process. All that we can say is that this chapter, the trial Court process, is over or concluded and now that it is over and not still hanging out there, the victim can move past this chapter and get on with her life.

[Page 3]

The law that binds a sentencing Judge says that the purpose of the sentencing process is to promote respect for society's laws and to maintain a safe and peaceful community. A sentencing Judge is required to impose an appropriate sentence that has one or more objectives that are set forth in the Criminal Code.

Here, as is usually the case in sentencing those who have committed a major sexual assault, denunciation and deterrence are obviously objectives of the sentence to be imposed. In addition, I find that in the circumstances of this case, it is necessary to separate this offender from society for the protection of society. Although I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, I am satisfied as a layperson that this man suffers from some kind of emotional or mental dysfunction.

This man has two daughters of his own. Being a father of two young girls, he would have to be shocked and full of shame with the knowledge of what he did to this young woman. The cruel and brutal nature of what he did to the victim tells me that he is ill, that this was more than simply sexual gratification.

Notwithstanding what Mr. Laviolette has said today, intoxication alone is not an explanation in my view. There is something wrong with him and he needs treatment. He needs to be segregated from society for a long enough period that he can receive treatment and

[Page 4]

have a fair chance to rehabilitate himself before returning to society's midst.

I will state that proportionality and parity, as those principles are set out in the Criminal Code, are two important principles that I have considered in determining an appropriate sentence in this case. It is an additional aggravating circumstance that in committing this offence, Mr. Laviolette preyed upon a vulnerable intoxicated young woman many years his junior.

When I consider all of the circumstances of this particular crime of sexual assault and of Mr. Laviolette's previous history of violent crime, I am of the view that an appropriate sentence would be in the range of five to six years' imprisonment. However, there are two matters that operate to mitigate a sentence of that duration.

Firstly, Mr. Laviolette has pleaded guilty to the crime. The plea did not come at an early stage. There were two changes of defence counsel, postponements of trial dates, but Mr. Laviolette did waive his right to a preliminary inquiry, did plead guilty in this Court, with the result that the victim was not required at any time to testify in a public courtroom about the details of this horrible ordeal. And from what I understand of the emotional trauma which the victim continues to experience, I am satisfied that

[Page 5]

Mr. Laviolette's guilty plea has saved or prevented further emotional harm to the victim. Mr. Laviolette's guilty plea, late as it is, is taken by the Court as real acknowledgment of responsibility for what he has done and a willingness to accept the consequences for what he has done.

Secondly, there is the fact that Mr. Laviolette has been without his liberty since committing this crime. As I have stated, he was arrested immediately after the event and has been remanded in custody ever since while awaiting his trial. This is a period in excess of 11 months, and he is entitled to credit against his sentence on that account.

Please stand now, Mr. Laviolette.

Lee Todd Laviolette, for the crime that you have committed, sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code, it is the sentence of this Court that you serve a term of imprisonment of three years.

In addition, I grant the DNA order requested by the Crown. And further, there will be a firearms prohibition order under Section 109 of the Criminal Code. In the circumstances, there will be no Victim Fine surcharge. I direct the Clerk of the Court to endorse the Warrant of Committal with this Court's recommendation that you be given an opportunity to access psychiatric treatment or counselling or other programs, similar programs, while you are serving your

[Page 6]

sentence.

You may sit.

Is there anything further, counsel, on this file?

MR. FOX:   Nothing, sir.

MR. BRYDON:  I don't know if an order has been made protecting the identity of the complainant. I don't remember one being made in this Court, perhaps that should be made even at this stage.

THE COURT:   There is nothing in the Court's reasons that says her name, that is deliberate.

MR. BRYDON:  But the Information or the Indictment is a public document and just out of an abundance of caution.

THE COURT:   There hasn't been an order in this Court, is what you are saying, as yet. There would have been probably in the Territorial Court.

MR. BRYDON:  Yes.

THE COURT:   Fine, that's a good point, Mr. Brydon, thank you for pointing that out. There will be an order under the provision of the Criminal Code prohibiting the publication or broadcasting of the identity of the complainant, or the victim in this case, or any information that could disclose her identity.

MR. BRYDON:  Thank you, sir.

THE COURT:   Thank you.

[Page 7]

(AT WHICH TIME THE ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Lois Hewitt
Court Reporter

[Page 3]