Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Sentence
Decision Content
R. v. Ruben, 2007 NWTSC 35 S-1-CR-2006000086
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
NANCY BERTHA RUBEN
_____________________________________________________
Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Sentence delivered
by the Honourable Justice V.O. Ouellette, sitting at
Inuvik, in the Northwest Territories, on April 25th,
A.D. 2007.
_____________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Mr. B. Lepage: Counsel for the Crown
Ms. J. Lillegran: Counsel for the Accused
(Charge under s. 267(a) Criminal Code)
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: I take it you agree that
2 pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code the
3 firearms prohibition is mandatory?
4 MS. LILLEGRAN: Yes, that is correct.
5 THE COURT: All right. So that order will
6 go, Madam Clerk.
7 THE COURT CLERK: Thank you, sir.
8 THE COURT: And in relation to the DNA
9 testing?
10 MS. LILLEGRAN: No.
11 THE COURT: She does not agree, I take it,
12 or --
13 MS. LILLEGRAN: I'm sorry?
14 THE COURT: What is your position in
15 relation to the DNA? It is discretionary --
16 MS. LILLEGRAN: Yes.
17 THE COURT: -- in this case with the
18 nature of this offence.
19 MS. LILLEGRAN: This would be assault with a
20 weapon.
21 THE COURT: Yes. And what is Ms. Ruben's
22 position in relation to whether or not that order
23 should be made?
24 MR. LEPAGE: Your Honour, I submit with
25 section 267 a DNA order is mandatory.
26 THE COURT: Is it?
27 THE COURT CLERK: Yes.
Official Court Reporters
1
1 MR. LEPAGE: Yes.
2 THE COURT: Then there is no issue. All
3 right. I thought it was one of the discretionary
4 ones, but --
5 MR. LEPAGE: No. The assault would be a
6 discretionary, Your Honour.
7 THE COURT: But with a weapon.
8 MR. LEPAGE: Yes.
9 THE COURT: Okay. Then that order will
10 go, Madam Clerk. That's fine, Madam Clerk.
11 THE COURT CLERK: Thank you, sir.
12 THE COURT: You are satisfied also.
13 All right.
14 (FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE BY COUNSEL)
15 THE COURT: Ms. Ruben, one of the most
16 difficult things I find as a Judge is sentencing.
17 The law clearly provides in the Criminal Code,
18 sections 718 and 718.1, 718.2, the different
19 factors that the Court has to look at in deciding
20 the appropriate sentence. Of course, it really
21 boils down to balancing denunciation and
22 deterrence with rehabilitation.
23 I clearly accept Ms. Lillegran's submissions
24 on your behalf that your life has not been an
25 easy one. You have had a lot of tragedies. I do
26 not know about the previous incidences with
27 regard to your record, but clearly I accept that
Official Court Reporters
2
1 you do not recall using the knife in this case,
2 and that seemed to be fairly evident from all of
3 the evidence that is before us.
4 I also do to a certain extent - although it
5 is not a self-defence issue and it was not in
6 these circumstances - take into account that
7 before the use of the knife you were a victim of
8 some sort in the sense of being pushed around and
9 being verbally abused. Clearly, if one accepts
10 the evidence of Kristen, who did not seem to pick
11 sides, you were also the subject of some sexual
12 harassment of some form, and I think that has to
13 be taken into account when the big picture is
14 looked at.
15 Unfortunately, Ms. Ruben, your record and
16 your related record involves assaults causing
17 bodily harm and then another assault and another
18 assault and many failures to appear and breaches,
19 but, most importantly, the last one in 2002,
20 which I do appreciate is four years ago, but that
21 is also assault with a weapon, which was a knife.
22 On that occasion you received one year.
23 We do have to look at what is called the
24 step up principle, meaning that this sentence
25 should be greater than the previous one.
26 However, I do agree with Ms. Lillegran that we
27 are not looking at pen. time, and, in fact, the
Official Court Reporters
3
1 Crown has suggested two to three years, which, if
2 one went two years less a day, would put us at
3 territorial time. I am satisfied, when I
4 consider the circumstances of this offence and
5 what happened in the hour or two before the
6 actual offence itself that you committed, that
7 that clearly satisfies me that you are not in the
8 pen. range.
9 I am satisfied, when I take all of those
10 matters into account, that the proper sentence
11 would be 18 months. However, your net sentence
12 will be reduced by -- I just want to make sure.
13 My intent is to give you a credit of two-for-one
14 for every day of remand. You served 95, if I
15 heard correctly. So that would be 190 days, if
16 my math is right. Yes. Basically six months'
17 credit. So your net sentence would be one year.
18 I am going to recommend that that sentence
19 be served in Fort Smith where you can access all
20 of the programs that could be of use to you
21 dealing with grief and other issues that you have
22 to deal with.
23 Is there anything else that I have
24 forgotten?
25 THE COURT CLERK: Your Honour, how long is the
26 firearm prohibition for?
27 THE COURT: Ten years.
Official Court Reporters
4
1 THE COURT CLERK: Thank you.
2 THE COURT: I think that is what the Code
3 provides, in any event.
4 MR. LEPAGE: Yes. Yes, it does, Your
5 Honour. Thank you.
6 THE COURT: All right. Ms. Lillegran, is
7 there anything that I have forgotten?
8 MS. LILLEGRAN: No, Your Honour.
9 THE COURT CLERK: Victims of crime surcharge,
10 sir?
11 THE COURT: Waived.
12 THE COURT CLERK: Thank you.
13 THE COURT: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Is
14 there anything else that I should think of?
15 THE COURT CLERK: No, sir. I believe that is
16 everything.
17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very
18 much.
19 .....................................
20
21
22 Certified to be a true and
accurate transcript pursuant
23 to Rules 723 and 724 of the
Supreme Court Rules.
24
25
______________________________
26
Jill MacDonald, CSR(A), RPR
27 Court Reporter
Official Court Reporters
5
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.