Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence
Decision Content
R. v. Lepine 2013 NWTSC 19
S-1-CR2011000168
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- vs. -
VERNON RONALD LEPINE
_________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable
Justice K. Shaner, at Fort Smith in the Northwest
Territories, on February 27th A.D., 2013.
_________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Ms. D. Vaillancourt: Counsel for the Crown
Mr. P. Harte: Counsel for the Accused
An order has been made banning publication of the
identity of the Complainant/Witness pursuant to Section
486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: Mr. Lepine was convicted of
2 sexual assault following a jury trial held
3 here in Fort Smith November 26th through 29th
4 of 2012. At the request of the defence,
5 sentencing was put over until this week to
6 allow time for a pre-sentence report to be
7 prepared. Submissions from counsel and from
8 Mr. Lepine were heard yesterday and they were
9 very very helpful. It is now my
10 responsibility to impose sentence in light of
11 all of those things.
12 As I indicated yesterday, a publication
13 ban was issued at the trial with respect to
14 the identity of the victim. For that reason,
15 I will refer to her as "the victim" in these
16 reasons, rather than by her name, or initials.
17 The first thing that I will address is the
18 issue of pre-sentence custody.
19 Defence counsel's position is that Mr.
20 Lepine should be granted enhanced credit for
21 the time that he spent awaiting this
22 sentencing hearing at a rate of 1.5 days for
23 every day spent in remand. The Crown submits
24 that the credit should be limited to one to
25 one. In my view, Mr. Lepine should be granted
26 enhanced credit at the maximum rate of 1.5 to
27 one.
Official Court Reporters 1
1 The Criminal Code provides, in
2 Section 719(3), that credit for time spent in
3 custody awaiting trial is now limited to a
4 maximum of one day for each day spent in
5 custody. However, 719(3.1) allows the Court
6 to credit at the rate of one and a half days
7 for each day spent in custody if the
8 circumstances justify it. The Courts both
9 here and elsewhere have ruled that the
10 circumstances do not need to be exceptional to
11 justify granting the more generous credit;
12 however, they must be individual to the
13 accused and there must be something that
14 justifies it. This was the conclusion reached
15 by Chief Judge Gorin in The Queen v. Desjarlais
16 2012 NWTTC 2, and this decision was recently
17 approved of by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in
18 The Queen v. Stonefish 2012 MBCA 116. That
19 case provides a very excellent summary and
20 roundup of the law in Canada on this point.
21 To show that circumstances are individual
22 to the accused, there must be evidence of
23 those circumstances, whether through affidavit
24 or submissions of counsel or testimony, and
25 those must allow the Court to reach the
26 conclusion that the circumstances justify the
27 granting of additional credit.
Official Court Reporters 2
1 One of the circumstances that has, in
2 other jurisdictions, justified enhanced
3 credit, is the delay that is incurred in
4 waiting for a pre-sentence report. This was
5 the conclusion reached in The Queen v. Sharkey
6 2012 BCSC 1541 where there was a significant
7 delay in sentencing to allow Mr. Sharkey to
8 obtain a Gladue Report; and in The Queen v.
9 Molendumar 2012 ONCJ 151, and The Queen v.
10 Dingwell 2012 PESC 13, and The Queen v. Mose
11 2012 PESC 36, where there was delay occasioned
12 waiting for a pre-sentence report. In all of
13 those cases, the Court was satisfied that the
14 delay was beyond the control of the accused
15 and that but for the delay, the accuseds would
16 have started serving their sentences and
17 earning remission.
18 A pre-sentence report is a very useful
19 tool to the Court in determining an
20 appropriate sentence. As Mr. Harte pointed
21 out, the need to wait for the report was not
22 within Mr. Lepine's control. They take time
23 to prepare. Unfortunately, however, this
24 means that during the time that he was in
25 custody (or any other individual awaiting the
26 pre-sentence report for that matter) he was
27 not earning remission.
Official Court Reporters 3
1 There is nothing to suggest that Mr.
2 Lepine would not have earned remission, or
3 started earning remission, had the sentence
4 commenced in November immediately following
5 the trial; and indeed, I note that Mr. Lepine
6 did avail himself of programming at the North
7 Slave Correctional Centre. I conclude,
8 therefore, that Mr. Lepine should get enhanced
9 credit for the time he spent on remand
10 awaiting sentencing. As of today, he has
11 spent 91 days, or approximately three months,
12 in remand and he will be given credit of four
13 months and two weeks for that time.
14 Turning to the matter at hand, the main
15 matter, rather, the circumstances of this
16 offence, while tragic, are uncomplicated.
17 On March 25th, 2011, the victim went out
18 with friends to a house party. The host of
19 the party was her friend Mr. Bruno. Mr.
20 Lepine attended this party as well. The party
21 continued into the morning of March 26th,
22 2011, and the victim indicated that throughout
23 that time she was consuming alcohol. Mr.
24 Lepine consumed alcohol that evening and at
25 the party but according to the testimony he
26 gave at the trial, it was a relatively
27 moderate amount.
Official Court Reporters 4
1 At around seven in the morning on March
2 26th, the victim went to sleep in Mr. Bruno's
3 bedroom. On cross-examination she indicated
4 that she may have been passed out. In any
5 event, it's undisputed that she was
6 unconscious. Mr. Bruno joined her on the bed
7 about an hour later and he also went to sleep.
8 The sexual assault occurred a few hours later,
9 at approximately 10 o'clock in the morning.
10 Mr. Lepine presented alibi evidence
11 through his own testimony and that of his wife
12 to the effect that he was at his own home at
13 the time but obviously the jury did not accept
14 this.
15 The assault began while the victim was
16 unconscious with Mr. Bruno asleep beside her.
17 She testified that she started to wake up
18 because she felt something brushing against
19 her face. Mr. Lepine placed his finger in her
20 vagina and at that point she became fully
21 awake and Mr. Lepine stopped. He put his
22 hands on his head and was turning in a circle;
23 he said "sorry" and something to the effect of
24 "I can't believe that I did this to my girl".
25 He then left the room and the residence.
26 Understandably, the victim was very
27 distraught. She woke up Mr. Bruno who said
Official Court Reporters 5
1 that she was kicking her legs, pointing to the
2 door, and saying Mr. Lepine's first name.
3 Mr. Bruno said she was unable to tell him what
4 happened for some time. Mr. Bruno helped her
5 to contact her boyfriend and to call for a
6 ride from Mr. Lepine's sister.
7 The Crown has characterized this is a
8 major sexual assault. The definition of a
9 "major sexual assault" was set out by the
10 Alberta Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Arcand
11 2010 ABCA 363. At paragraph 171, the Court
12 said the following:
13 A sexual assault is a major sexual
14 assault where the sexual assault
15 is of a nature or character such
16 that a reasonable person could
17 foresee that it is likely to cause
18 serious psychological or emotional
19 harm whether or not physical
20 injury occurs. The harm might
21 come from the force threatened or
22 used or from the sexual aspects of
23 the situation or from any
24 combination of the two. A major
25 sexual assault includes, but is
26 not limited to, non-consensual
27 vaginal intercourse, anal
Official Court Reporters 6
1 intercourse, fellatio and
2 cunnilingus. We are satisfied
3 that in assessing whether a sexual
4 assault is a major sexual assault
5 is well within the capacity of
6 sentencing Judges.
7 In argument, defence counsel urged that
8 this is not a major sexual assault and argued
9 that I should not equate what happened here,
10 that is digital penetration, with penile
11 penetration. In my view, while these are in
12 fact different acts, they are equally serious
13 and obviously equally harmful violations of a
14 victim's sexual integrity. The fact that
15 there was no penile penetration does not
16 remove this act from the category of a major
17 sexual assault.
18 As noted by Chief Judge Lilles of the
19 Yukon Territorial Court from R. v. G.W.S.,
20 2004 YKTC 5, at paragraph 20,
21 Earlier cases often considered
22 lack of penile penetration or even
23 incomplete intercourse as a
24 mitigating factor. In my opinion,
25 these factors have been given too
26 much weight. The typical feelings
27 of humiliation, degradation,
Official Court Reporters 7
1 guilt, shame, embarrassment, fear,
2 and self-blame can result from the
3 unwanted invasion of intimate
4 privacy and the loss of control
5 associated with sexual
6 victimization. That invasion
7 occurs even in the absence of
8 sexual intercourse. It would be
9 wrong to suggest that digital
10 penetration is significantly
11 different from penile penetration
12 from the perspective of the
13 victim. Touching a vulnerable or
14 sleeping victim in the genitals
15 can generate strong feelings of
16 victimization.
17 I am also of the view that the amount of
18 time that the assault lasted does not remove
19 it from the category of a major sexual
20 assault. There are many serious, awful crimes
21 that take seconds to commit but yet have
22 permanent, long-standing, and devastating
23 results. I think of a murder victim who is
24 shot and killed in an instant. This sexual
25 assault was cut short because the victim woke
26 up. It was an invasive act perpetuated upon a
27 vulnerable sleeping victim and any reasonable
Official Court Reporters 8
1 person could foresee that such an act would
2 cause psychological or emotional harm.
3 Accordingly, it is a major sexual assault.
4 Mr. Harte provided information to the
5 Court about Mr. Lepine's background and
6 circumstances. I have also had the benefit of
7 reading and considering a thorough
8 pre-sentence report.
9 Mr. Lepine is 44 years old. He is married
10 to a woman with whom he has had a
11 long-standing relationship. He is aboriginal,
12 and he has lived in Fort Smith since he was an
13 infant. His parents separated very early on
14 and he was raised primarily by his mother who
15 remarried in the mid 1970s. According to the
16 pre-sentence report, there was domestic
17 violence and excessive alcohol use in Mr.
18 Lepine's home during the time that his mother
19 was in this second marriage. Sometimes
20 violence was inflicted upon Mr. Lepine by his
21 stepfather. There was also other
22 relationships but they did not include
23 domestic violence. Mr. Lepine's mother was
24 financially responsible for her children, and
25 she often worked multiple jobs to support
26 them. They struggled to make ends meet.
27 Despite the difficulties identified in his
Official Court Reporters 9
1 childhood however, Mr. Lepine's upbringing had
2 a number of positive aspects and outcomes. He
3 seems to have a very close and healthy
4 relationship with his mother, his siblings and
5 his maternal relatives, including his
6 grandfather who taught him how to trap and
7 hunt. According to the report, he has
8 participated throughout his life in the
9 traditional activities of his culture, and it
10 appears that he is well connected to his
11 aboriginal heritage and traditions.
12 Mr. Lepine attended school in Fort Smith
13 and he has a Grade 9 education. Neither he
14 nor his mother attended residential school
15 and, according to the pre-sentence report, he
16 does not feel that he is affected by
17 residential schools.
18 Since leaving school, he has completed
19 various training programs and obtained a
20 number of certifications and qualifications
21 which were set out by Mr. Harte yesterday.
22 These include obtaining a GED in 1997, a
23 certification in mineral processing, and
24 logging 2000 hours as a welder.
25 Mr. Lepine has a positive and consistent
26 work history. He has worked at Diavik and
27 Snap Lake mines for three years each, and he
Official Court Reporters 10
1 was on contract at Ekati. He has done
2 volunteer work in the community, including
3 cutting wood for his grandparents.
4 A number of letters of support were
5 submitted by defence counsel on Mr. Lepine's
6 behalf from his friends, relatives, and
7 acquaintances. They all seem to indicate that
8 Mr. Lepine is willing to help people out - he
9 shovels snow, he does yard work, he does home
10 maintenance, he has helped people care for
11 their children. He is described as kind
12 hearted and hard working.
13 Mr. Harte also detailed some of the health
14 challenges that Mr. Lepine has. He has
15 recently been treated with nitroglycerin for
16 chest pain and numbness while on remand at
17 North Slave Correctional Centre. And he also
18 suffers from sleep apnea which was being
19 treated by medical personnel at the Fort Smith
20 Health Centre. He has experienced difficulty
21 in getting help for his sleep apnea at the
22 North Slave Correctional Centre.
23 Mr. Lepine has a criminal record, and it
24 is substantial in length. The adult record
25 dates back to 1987 and includes 22 adult
26 offences. There are convictions for assault,
27 uttering threats, assault with a weapon,
Official Court Reporters 11
1 breaking and entering with intent, breaking
2 and entering and theft, possession of property
3 obtained by crime, and breaking and entering
4 and committing assault with a weapon. I do
5 note that the last conviction before this one
6 was for failing to attend court in 2004 for
7 which he received a $700 fine, and that there
8 were no convictions between 1996 and 2004.
9 There was a victim impact statement that
10 was provided late in these proceedings
11 yesterday afternoon. The victim did not want
12 the statement to be read in court. However,
13 Mr. Lepine did have an opportunity to review
14 it with his lawyer and indicated that he
15 disagreed with a number of things that the
16 victim said, including the amount of time that
17 she missed from work as a result of the
18 assault. I can make no finding on that
19 particular point but what I can take from that
20 statement is that this offence has had a long
21 lasting negative impact on the victim. And
22 she is still feeling its effects.
23 The Criminal Code sets out principles and
24 objectives of sentencing that provide a
25 framework to guide judges in imposing a
26 sentence that is just and appropriate. The
27 objectives are listed in Section 718 of the
Official Court Reporters 12
1 Criminal Code. The emphasis to be placed on
2 each of these objectives very much depends on
3 what the offence is, the circumstances under
4 which it was committed, and the circumstances
5 of the offender.
6 Those objectives are denunciation of
7 unlawful conduct, which is an expression of
8 society's abhorrence for a particular conduct;
9 deterrence, both specific and general;
10 separating offenders from society, where that
11 is necessary; rehabilitation, reparation, and
12 promoting a sense of responsibility in
13 offenders; and an acknowledgment of the harm
14 done to victims and community.
15 It is appropriate at this point to
16 indicate that a number of cases of this Court,
17 including The Queen v. Lafferty 2011 NWTSC 60;
18 The Queen v. Tatzia, 2010 NWTSC 47; as well as
19 the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal in
20 The Queen v. A.J.P.J. 2011 NWTCA 2, have
21 confirmed that the primary objectives in a
22 case like this, that is the sexual assault on
23 a sleeping or unconscious victim, are
24 denunciation and specific and general
25 deterrence.
26 In seeking to obtain the objectives of
27 sentencing, judges are guided by a number of
Official Court Reporters 13
1 broad principles and these too are set out in
2 the Criminal Code.
3 The most important principle in
4 sentencing, and one that defence counsel
5 emphasized, is proportionality. This is
6 articulated in the Criminal Code as follows:
7 A sentence must be proportionate
8 to the gravity of the offence and
9 the degree of responsibility of
10 the offender.
11 Judges must consider aggravating and
12 mitigating factors and increase or reduce a
13 sentence accordingly. Judges are also guided
14 by the principles of restraint and similarity
15 of sentence.
16 Similarity of sentence means simply that
17 there should be similar treatment for like
18 offences and offenders. And the principle of
19 restraint means that imprisonment should be a
20 measure of last resort. This requires
21 consideration of all available sanctions other
22 than imprisonment that are reasonable in the
23 circumstances with particular attention to
24 circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The
25 importance of this principle was recently
26 reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in
27 The Queen v. Ipeelee.
Official Court Reporters 14
1 Earlier I indicated that I agree with the
2 Crown's characterization of this as a major
3 sexual assault. This has implications for
4 sentencing because the starting point for a
5 major sexual assault is three years in prison.
6 Although, Mr. Harte indicated that he is not
7 able to find appellate case law on this point,
8 I view the Northwest Territories Court of
9 Appeal's decision in A.J.P.J., cited earlier,
10 as confirmation of this approach and it is
11 binding on me.
12 Moreover, a number of cases of this Court,
13 including Kodzin and Lafferty, which were
14 cited earlier, and more recently The Queen v.
15 Mannilaq 2012 NWTSC 48, have taken this
16 approach.
17 This three year starting point is not a
18 minimum sentence. It is just that - a
19 starting point - to which the sentencing judge
20 must then apply and consider the aggravating
21 and mitigating circumstances and then adjust
22 it up or down accordingly.
23 There are a number of aggravating factors
24 that arise out of the circumstances of this
25 particular offence. The most disturbing is
26 that the victim was asleep in a bedroom when
27 the sexual assault occurred. Defence counsel
Official Court Reporters 15
1 expressed disagreement with this as an
2 aggravating factor because all sexual assaults
3 are offensive conduct. However a number of
4 cases from this Court, as well as the A.J.P.J.
5 decision of the Court of Appeal, which I cited
6 earlier, have recognized this as an
7 aggravating factor. What makes it aggravating
8 is the victim's vulnerability and the fact
9 that Mr. Lepine took advantage of this. As
10 stated in Arcand at paragraph 283,
11 Since the offender knows full well
12 that the person is not consenting,
13 this reveals an enhanced degree of
14 calculation and deliberateness by
15 the offender. Further, at that
16 point the person is at their most
17 vulnerable, unable to defend
18 themselves in any way and unable
19 to call for help from others. The
20 offender knows this too, adding
21 further to the high level of moral
22 blameworthiness for the illegal
23 conduct.
24 Mr. Lepine's criminal record is an
25 aggravating factor as well. I do recognize
26 that it is somewhat dated and it does not
27 contain any convictions for sexual assaults.
Official Court Reporters 16
1 It does, however, contain six convictions for
2 crimes of violence, the last of which was
3 breaking and entering and committing assault
4 with a weapon for which he received a sentence
5 of 30 months incarceration.
6 He is no stranger to the consequences of
7 breaking the law.
8 It is aggravating that Mr. Bruno was
9 asleep beside the victim when this occurred.
10 Despite his presence there, Mr. Lepine was not
11 deterred. It is aggravating because Mr.
12 Lepine was obviously determined to carry out
13 this act regardless of who was present.
14 The Crown submitted that Mr. Lepine's
15 relationship to the victim and her
16 relationship to his family is also an
17 aggravating factor. This is premised on it
18 being a relationship of trust.
19 Based on the evidence at trial, however,
20 her relationship was one of friendship and
21 acquaintance. She had at one point been in a
22 relationship with Mr. Lepine's nephew. It is
23 not surprising in a community this size that
24 she would know Mr. Lepine and in my view it is
25 a stretch as a relationship of trust or as
26 being on par with the relationship that one
27 would have with a relative or a child or as
Official Court Reporters 17
1 between a coach and a young athlete. The
2 relationship was no more than friendship at
3 best and, accordingly, it is not an
4 aggravating factor.
5 Sadly, I find that there is nothing in the
6 way of mitigation. Mr. Lepine has not
7 accepted responsibility for the offence nor
8 has he expressed remorse other than to say
9 through counsel that he felt sorry for what
10 happened to the victim.
11 The pre-sentence report indicates that he
12 lacks insight into himself and his role in
13 this crime.
14 The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of
15 three years, arguing that it is in the range
16 that is necessary to achieve the objectives of
17 sentencing. As I indicated, these are
18 denunciation and specific and general
19 deterrence.
20 The Crown also submitted that there is no
21 reason to depart from the three year starting
22 point as there is an absence of mitigating
23 circumstances.
24 The defence submits that the sentence that
25 I impose should be a combination of custody
26 and probation with the custodial portion being
27 no more than a year. Mr. Harte brought to my
Official Court Reporters 18
1 attention a number of cases contained in the
2 case of The Queen v. D.S., 2010 NLTD 89 which
3 resulted in sentences in the range of six to
4 12 months for cases involving touching and
5 digital penetration. However, as I noted
6 yesterday, all of these cases, including D.S.,
7 predate Arcand and of course the A.J.P.J.
8 decision of our own Court of Appeal and
9 accordingly they are of very limited value.
10 Mr. Harte also raised the apparent
11 conflict amongst the principle of
12 proportionality, the three year starting
13 point, and Section 718.2(e), which deals with
14 the Court's obligation with respect to
15 aboriginal offenders, in support of a
16 departure from the three year starting point.
17 And in support of this, he relied on the
18 reasons of Mr. Justice Berger of the Alberta
19 Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Lee 2012 ABCA
20 17.
21 I find that the conflict, if there is one,
22 and I am not saying that there is or there
23 isn't, is not at play here. Mr. Lepine is
24 aboriginal but there was nothing presented in
25 the pre-sentence report or through counsel to
26 indicate that there are systemic factors
27 related to his aboriginal heritage that have
Official Court Reporters 19
1 contributed to him being in court here today
2 and which could perhaps justify a reduction in
3 the three year starting point so as to allow
4 for a custodial and probationary sentence
5 rather than a purely custodial one.
6 Mr. Lepine's childhood was not perfect by
7 any means but the systemic factors one
8 typically sees in a Gladue analysis, such as
9 the impact of residential schooling, poor
10 housing conditions, abject poverty, loss of
11 parental guidance and addictions, to name a
12 few, are just not there. I also note that the
13 Lee decision does not overrule Arcand and the
14 three year starting point which is the law in
15 this jurisdiction.
16 I have considered the information provided
17 to the Court about Mr. Lepine, both through
18 defence counsel's submissions and the many
19 letters of support from family and friends
20 that I referred to earlier. By all accounts
21 Mr. Lepine is a hard working and helpful,
22 productive member of his community. He is
23 considered a loving husband, son, and brother.
24 He has many family members who want to help
25 him through this and he has indicated that he
26 wants to deal with his own alcohol problem.
27 Sending Mr. Lepine to prison will be very
Official Court Reporters 20
1 painful for his friends and family, and it is
2 a very difficult decision for me to make. But
3 Mr. Lepine did something terrible to the
4 victim here. He sexually assaulted her in an
5 extremely invasive manner while she was
6 asleep. He bears a very high degree of moral
7 blameworthiness and the sentence imposed must
8 reflect this. It must send a clear message to
9 Mr. Lepine and to the community at large that
10 this type of victimization will not be
11 tolerated. The law requires it, and the
12 victim, upon whom this has had a profound
13 impact, deserves to know that the law is
14 behind her.
15 In these circumstances, a sentence of
16 three years incarceration is required to
17 achieve the important objectives of
18 denunciation and deterrence and to recognize
19 the degree of moral blameworthiness
20 attributable to Mr. Lepine. Further, given
21 the absence of mitigating circumstances or
22 systemic factors relating to Mr. Lepine's
23 aboriginal heritage, anything less would be
24 inconsistent with the principle of similarity
25 of sentence.
26 Mr. Lepine, can you please stand.
27 Upon being convicted of sexual assault and
Official Court Reporters 21
1 upon consideration of the circumstances and
2 the nature of the offence, as well as your
3 personal circumstances, I sentence you to a
4 term of three years in prison.
5 You may sit down, Mr. Harte.
6 As I indicated earlier, this term will be
7 reduced by the amount of time that you spent
8 in custody already awaiting preparation of the
9 pre-sentence report. So the remaining time of
10 your sentence will be 31 months and 14 days.
11 And, as I have said, that takes into account
12 the four months and 14 days credit.
13 THE ACCUSED: I wish that I was actually
14 guilty of this. Sorry, Your Honour.
15 THE COURT: Please sit down, Mr. Lepine.
16 There will be a firearms prohibition under
17 Section 109 of the Criminal Code and that term
18 will be for ten years.
19 I do note from the pre-sentence report,
20 Ms. Vaillancourt and Mr. Harte, that Mr.
21 Lepine has throughout his life been
22 participating in hunting, trapping and fishing
23 activities, as well as in other traditional
24 activities, and so I will also make an order
25 lifting this prohibition for the purposes of
26 sustenance hunting under Section 113 of the
27 Criminal Code.
Official Court Reporters 22
1 This is a designated offence under
2 Section 490.011(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and
3 so there will be an order under 490.12
4 requiring Mr. Lepine to comply with the Sex
5 Offender Information Registration Act, and
6 that will be in effect for 20 years.
7 There will also be an order under 487.051
8 permitting the collection of bodily fluids
9 from Mr. Lepine for DNA analysis.
10 Finally, I will make a recommendations
11 that Mr. Lepine be permitted to serve his
12 sentence in the Northwest Territories. As to
13 where he will be placed, that decision is for
14 Correction officials.
15 I will direct a copy of these reasons be
16 provided to the Director of Corrections,
17 however, so that he is aware of the level of
18 community and family support that is available
19 to Mr. Lepine in Fort Smith and so he is aware
20 of Mr. Lepine's particular health issues.
21 This may be of assistance to correctional
22 officials in making their decision although I
23 do note that it is not binding on them.
24 Those are my reasons. Is there anything
25 else, counsel?
26 MR. HARTE: Thank you, Your Honour, no.
27 MS. VAILLANCOURT: No, Your Honour.
Official Court Reporters 23
1 THE COURT: We will adjourn Court.
2 ----------------------------------------------
3
4
5 Certified to be a true and
accurate transcript pursuant
6 to Rules 723 and 724 of the
Supreme Court Rules,
7
8
9
10
11 ____________________________
12 Lois Hewitt,
Court Reporter
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Official Court Reporters 24
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.