Supreme Court

R. v. Ulayuk, 2006 NWTSC 10

                                                S-1-CR2005000076

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES





             IN THE MATTER OF:






                             HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN





                                  - vs. -





                                 ELI ULAYUK



             _________________________________________________________

             Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable

             Justice J.E. Richard, at Yellowknife in the Northwest

             Territories, on February 22nd A.D., 2006.

             _________________________________________________________

             APPEARANCES:


             Mr. J. Cliffe:                     Counsel for the Crown
             Ms. J. Walsh:

             Mr. G. Boyd:                       Counsel for the Accused

                  ----------------------------------------

                Charge under s. 235(1) Criminal Code of Canada





1     There are only a few crimes of violence which have come before the Courts of this jurisdiction in recent years that have had such a profound impact on the community as has Eli Ulayuk's horrible crime on October 6th, 2004. It is an understatement to say that our community was shaken by this heinous crime. There are several reasons for this. One is obviously the brutal and vile nature of the murder that he committed. Another is that Mr. Ulayuk has killed before, was given the maximum sentence provided by the law for that first homicide and was on parole when he committed this second homicide.

2     Mr. Ulayuk is obviously a very disturbed individual who suffers from serious mental difficulties. Because his character as an offender is one of the factors that determines the sentence to be imposed in this case, it is necessary for me to state for the record some of his background leading up to the horrible events of October 6th, 2004.

3     As appears from the published report from his earlier case, in August 1988, when Mr. Ulayuk was 20 years of age, he caused the death of a young woman in his home community of Igloolik and he did this after having thoughts about having sex with a dead woman. He eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The sentencing Judge was the late Justice Mark de Weerdt. In sentencing Mr. Ulayuk to the maximum sentence provided by law, that is, life imprisonment, Justice de Weerdt stated that it was the worst case of manslaughter that he had seen in 35 years in terms of its extraordinarily horrible facts.

4     Mr. Ulayuk was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992. He was released on day parole here in Yellowknife in the year 2000.

5     The deceased Louise Pargeter was his parole officer in 2001 and at one point she recommended that his parole be revoked, and it was revoked and he was sent back to jail. He was released again on day parole here in Yellowknife in April 2003 and was granted full parole in June 2004.

6     On October 6th, 2004, the deceased Louise Pargeter was at Mr. Ulayuk's apartment here in Yellowknife for a prearranged scheduled meeting with him as his parole officer. At one point while Ms. Pargeter was seated on the couch, Mr. Ulayuk went behind the couch and out of her line of vision he picked up a hammer and hit her on the head from behind. She slumped over on the couch and then Mr. Ulayuk struck her four more times on the head with the hammer. He then wrapped some twine around her neck and strangled her. He then removed her clothing and had sexual intercourse with her. He then took the keys to her vehicle from her jacket and he left his apartment and drove south on the highway out of Yellowknife. Several hours later, just after midnight on October 7th, he was arrested by the RCMP after he fled on foot off of the highway.

7     Following his arrest, Mr. Ulayuk, in due course, made a number of admissions to the RCMP including the details of the killing and the fact that he had for some time thought about killing Ms. Pargeter and that he had also for some time fantasized about killing other women in Yellowknife and having sex with their dead body. He described himself to the police as suffering from necrophilia. He also stated to the police that he had used crack cocaine on the day of the offence.

8     Quite apart from Mr. Ulayuk's admissions of culpability in his statements to the police, the police recovered forensic evidence from the scene which clearly implicated Mr. Ulayuk in the crime.

9     So, today, Mr. Ulayuk is before the Court and pleads guilty to second degree murder.

10     The law defines murder in the context of this case as the intentional causing of death of another human being. Section 235 of the Criminal Code states that every person who commits murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

11     The Criminal Code goes on to state that a life sentence for second degree murder is to be served without eligibility for parole for a period of ten years, or for such greater number of years as is substituted by the sentencing Judge under Section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, up to 25 years. So the sole discretion that I have today as sentencing Judge is to make that determination of parole ineligibility under Section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

12     Before proceeding with that determination, I wish to make reference to the Victim Impact Statement of the deceased's partner Ann Lynagh who describes the shock, the loss, the sorrow, the anger she has felt, the pain that she carries every day. She also describes how this horrible crime robbed their very young child of her mother. And also because of the child's very young age, that she is, or will be, even robbed of memories of her mother.

13     She also states,


...he took my partner whom I choose to be with, to Louise's parents he took away their only daughter, to her brother he took away his only sister, to her many friends he took away their buddy, their teammate, their confidante, their fishing partner and friend all gone in seconds. The pain manifests itself in many ways, I lock my doors, if I am in the garage I worry someone will enter the house and harm our child. I desperately want nothing bad to happen to her again. I know how dangerous the men are who are released into our care here in Yellowknife and I don't feel safe.


14     And further she states,


It has shattered my belief in the system of justice and the entire system of parole here in Canada.


15     Ms. Lynagh states that her deceased partner, she herself, and many close friends of the deceased were victimized not only by Eli Ulayuk but also by those who underestimated Mr. Ulayuk's risk of reoffending.

16     There were also other written statements filed with the Court by close friends of the deceased. I cannot help but be moved by the sentiment expressed in those statements from Louise Pargeter's friends who are themselves victims of Mr. Ulayuk's heinous crime. They speak eloquently not only of their own intense personal loss and pain but also of the loss of a sense of safety and security in our community of Yellowknife.

17     I return now to the determination to be made under Section 745.4 of the Criminal Code. To reiterate, that section states that I may substitute for ten years a greater number of years of imprisonment that Eli Ulayuk must serve before having his suitability to be released into the general public assessed. This can be up to 25 years as the Court deems fit in the circumstances after having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding its comission.

18     As observed by the Court in Ontario in the case of Olsen, the Parliament of Canada in enacting that provision has therefore recognized that some second degree murders are as serious and as morally culpable as a first degree murder.

19     When I consider as one of the determining factors the character of this offender, I note that Mr. Ulayuk is 37 years of age and is before the Court again for a second time for killing a woman in order to realize upon his bizarre and aberrant fantasies. To repeat, Mr. Ulayuk was serving a life sentence on parole at the time of committing this murder. The other homicide committed by Eli Ulayuk is highly relevant to the "character of the offender" as the two homicides have several disturbing features in common.

20     As to the factor entitled "the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its comission", in this case the deceased was the victim of an especially brutal and vile attack. Some of the details of the murder are unspeakable. The deceased woman was by all accounts a caring and dedicated parole officer who was working with Mr. Ulayuk and was there with him that day to help Mr. Ulayuk with his reintegration into society. And for those efforts, she was met with the ultimate betrayal.

21     This murder has had a devastating impact on the deceased's young family, her many close friends, and this community. There are no mitigating circumstances.

22     My role in making a determination under Section 745.4 is a sentencing function and not a parole function. The emphasis obviously has to be on the protection of society; in particular, the protection of women in our society.

23     The determination of the appropriate period of parole ineligibility under Section 745.4 requires the careful exercise of judicial discretion. In this case, I am aided by a joint submission of counsel that I substitute a period of 25 years of parole ineligibility.

24     That would be the maximum sentence allowed by law for this crime. The maximum sentence is usually reserved for the worst offender and the worst offence.

25     For all of the reasons that I have mentioned, I have no hesitation in finding that Eli Ulayuk and this horrible murder fall within the worst group of offences under this section of the Criminal Code and the worst group of offenders who have committed murder. Accordingly, in my view the maximum sentence is appropriate and that is what will be imposed.

26     Before proceeding to the formal imposition of sentence, I will just mention that the law requires me to read into the record at that time the provisions of the so-called "faint hope clause" as per Section 745.01 of the Criminal Code. I will also mention that the law provides that for the purpose of calculating the period of parole ineligibility, the time starts to run on the day that the offender is arrested and taken into custody by the police. Please stand, Mr. Ulayuk.

27     For the crime that have you committed, the second degree murder of Louise Pargeter, it is the sentence of this Court that you be imprisoned for life without eligibility for parole until you have served 25 years.

28     As required by law, I state the following for the record pursuant to Section 745.01.

29     The offender Eli Ulayuk has been found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The offender Eli Ulayuk is not eligible for parole until October 7th in the year 2029. However, after serving at least 15 years of the sentence, the offender Eli Ulayuk may apply under Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole. If the jury hearing the application reduces the period of parole ineligibility, the offender Eli Ulayuk may then make an application for parole under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act at the end of that reduced period.

30     In addition, there will be the mandatory lifetime firearms prohibition order pursuant to Section 109 of the Criminal Code.

31     I also grant the DNA order sought by the Crown pursuant to Section 487.051.

32     In the circumstances, there will be no Victim Fine surcharge.

33     Take a seat, Mr. Ulayuk.

34     Counsel, is there anything further with respect to this case? Do you need an order regarding the exhibits?

35     MR. CLIFFE: Just with respect to the exhibits that were tendered at the preliminary inquiry, Your Honour, I would be asking that they be disposed by way of return to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police here in Yellowknife.

36     THE COURT: Any submissions, Mr. Boyd?

37     MR. BOYD: No submissions, sir.

38     THE COURT: The usual order will go with respect to the disposition of exhibits at the expiry of the appeal period.

39     THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.

40     THE COURT: Anything further from either counsel?

41     MR. CLIFFE: Not by the Crown, Your Honour, thank you.

42     MR. BOYD: Not from the defence, sir.

43     THE COURT: Thank you, and we will close Court.















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






                                      ____________________________

                                      Lois Hewitt, CSR(A), RPR, CRR
                                      Court Reporter