Decision Content
R v Rabesca, 2026 NWTSC 24 S-1-CR-2025-000039
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-v-
PAMELA ANN LOUISE RABESCA
________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Facts and Sentencing held before the Honourable Justice A. Piché, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 4th day of March, 2026.
________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
J. Kelly: Counsel for the Crown
C. Davison: Counsel for the Defence
P. Ross: Counsel for the Defence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges under s. 266, 267(a), 267(b), 88, and 129(a) of the Criminal Code.
I N D E X
PAGE
Reasons for decision 1
Order re waiver of victim of crime surcharge 8
Forfeiture order 9
Ms. Rabesca was charged with a number of offences, including assault with a weapon. She entered a guilty plea to the lesser-included offence of common assault. The other charges were withdrawn, and now I need to impose sentence on the single count of common assault.
The parties have presented a joint submission. They are asking me to impose a suspended sentence with probation for a period of 12 months. At the sentencing hearing, the parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts that sets out the circumstances of the offence. These circumstances can be summarized as follows.
On October 4, 2024, at approximately 8:15 a.m., the victim, Alison Minoza, was walking in the downtown area of Yellowknife. A truck pulled over. Ms. Rabesca and another woman exited the truck. They confronted Ms. Minoza, and during the confrontation, Ms. Rabesca attempted to strike Ms. Minoza multiple times, and physically connected at least one time with the left side of her body.
Ms. Minoza retreated. Ms. Rabesca and the other woman got back in the truck and drove away. Ms. Minoza was located by the RCMP and paramedics at approximately 8:37 a.m. She was suffering from an injury, but the Crown concedes that they are unable to prove that it was caused by Ms. Rabesca.
There are a few things I want to say about these facts. There was a Charter and voluntariness voir dire in this case. During the voir dire, I heard evidence from police officers about their investigation. I gave a ruling, and soon I will release written reasons.
Anyone who reads that decision will see that the facts reported in it are very different from the facts I just set out. The police were investigating a stabbing, and it might raise questions about how we got from a stabbing to a common assault. And I believe it is important that I try to provide some explanation.
The evidence I heard at the voir dire was about the police investigation. It was about what they believe happened at the time. Because of the nature of the decisions I had to make at that stage, that was the focus of the hearing.
But it is not always possible for the Crown to prove what the police believed, and there are many reasons that can explain that. What I know are the facts the parties have admitted and presented before me, and for the purpose of imposing sentence today, they are the facts that are proven.
And it is on the basis of these facts that I am considering the joint submission that is presented to me. Negotiated resolutions are compromises, and they play a vital role in the administration of justice. I will have more to say about that in a few minutes.
But before I turn to the joint submission, I want to set out Ms. Rabesca's personal circumstances. She is 42 years old. She does not have a criminal record. She was born in Inuvik, but she grew up in Łutselkʼe. She identifies as Chipewyan.
Ms. Rabesca has mostly lived between Łutselkʼe and Yellowknife, although she has also spent time in Alberta as a teenager. I heard about her childhood, her upbringing and the many challenges she has faced. I will not go into details, but I will say that she has experienced an unstable childhood and significant hardship throughout her life.
Ms. Rabesca is the mother of five children. Not all of them live with her, but she is working hard towards being reunited with all of them. Ms. Rabesca has received limited formal education, not surprisingly considering her circumstances. She has some history of employment, but it has been very sporadic and for short periods.
She does not have a traditional way of living, although she does participate in some traditional activities, and she has some traditional skills such as beading and she has participated in traditional activities at times.
Ms. Rabesca admits that she has an alcohol use issue and that it is linked to the offence. She has already made efforts to address her alcohol use, and she is interested in attending counselling to continue on that path.
As I mentioned, the parties have presented a joint submission. As the Supreme Court of Canada decided in R v Anthony-Cook, when this happens there are significant limits to judicial discretion in imposing sentence.
I can only depart from the joint submission if I find that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise not be in the public interest. It is a very high threshold. The reason judges will very rarely depart from negotiating resolution is that they bring important benefits to the criminal justice system.
They are beneficial to the parties. The accused is unlikely to give up their right to a trial unless they have some certainty about the outcome. And the prosecution can secure a conviction when their case might present weaknesses or challenges, and I understand that this is one of those cases where the Crown was facing challenges.
The fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. A sentence must always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and it must take into consideration aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The parties have pointed out, and I agree, that the following mitigating and aggravating factors are present in this case.
One aggravating factor is that this was an unprovoked attack. Ms. Minoza was just walking on the street minding her own business when the truck pulled over and she was attacked. Although it does not appear that the other woman who was with Ms. Rabesca participated in the physical aggression, her presence certainly made Ms. Minoza more vulnerable.
I have not heard anything from the victim Ms. Minoza. I know she was informed of her right to file a Victim Impact Statement, and she chose not to. But from what I know of the circumstances of the offence, I infer that it must have been a very scary experience for her.
Now, there are mitigating factors. There is a guilty plea. It was not entered at the first opportunity; it was entered on the first day of trial. But there was a Charter and voluntariness voir dire in this case, and Ms. Rabesca was successful on the voluntariness issue. And she only pled guilty to a lesser included offence.
Ultimately, she is taking responsibility for her conduct, so despite what could be perceived as a late guilty plea, Ms. Rabesca deserves significant mitigation for it. She is a first-time offender; that is also mitigating. She is 42, and the parties describe her involvement in this offence as out of character for her. I agree.
Ms. Rabesca's circumstances as an Indigenous person must also be taken into consideration. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code requires that the Court consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.
And there are Gladue factors in this case. I have already set them out. I accept Ms. Rabesca's alcohol use, which stems from the her background and personal circumstances, played a role in her offending. These circumstances reduce Ms. Rabesca's moral blameworthiness and require the exercise of restraint in imposing sentence.
The parties highlighted that because Ms. Rabesca is a first-time offender and because of her substance use issues, rehabilitation is an important objective both for her but also for the protection of the public, and I agree.
I am also taking into consideration that Ms. Rabesca spent four days in custody when she was arrested. As a first-time offender, this would certainly have had an effect on her, and I agree with the defence that this immediate consequence to her conduct plays a role in addressing the principles of deterrence and denunciation.
So considering the circumstances of the offence, the guilty plea, Ms. Rabesca's personal circumstances, including the fact that she is a first-time offender, the proposed sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and I will follow it.
So, I will suspend the passing of sentence and impose probation for a period of 12 months’ probation, with the following conditions. You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour, you will appear before the Court when required.
You will notify the Court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. You will report to a probation officer within --
And, Mr. Kelly, I do not recall if you indicated a specific time --
J. KELLY: I didn't. I would suggest two days.
THE COURT: Okay. Within 48 hours, and then as directed. You will have no contact with Alison Minoza. You will not attend the place of residence, employment or education of Alison Minoza. You will attend and participate in intake programming and counselling as directed by your probation officer.
In terms of ancillary orders, Mr. Kelly, I did not hear you asking for a 110 firearms prohibition?
J. KELLY: No. That's correct.
THE COURT: Or a DNA secondary order; you do not -- you are not asking for them?
J. KELLY: No. That's correct.
THE COURT: So there is the victim of crime surcharge. I heard from the Crown that there would be an application from defence to waive it for undue hardship, but I have not heard from you, Mr. Davison.
C. DAVISON: Sorry, I did mean to say that in my submissions and given her employment or lack of employment situation and the other things she has going on in her life, I would ask it be waived on the basis of hardship, please.
THE COURT: Okay. So I am waiving the victim of crime surcharge on the basis of undue hardship.
So I had a look, counsel, at the forfeiture order.
Mr. Kelly, I have one issue with the section that is mentioned, 491(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. When we read that, it says -- it connects the use of the weapon with the commission of the offence, and I am not sure on the basis of the facts as they were proven before me that I can reach that conclusion with respect to the knife.
J. KELLY: What section is that referring to?
THE COURT: 491(1)(a).
J. KELLY: That might be -- that's an oversight on my part. I -- specifically last night when drafting this I referenced 490(9)(d) in that -- that would have been meant to replace 491(1)(a).
THE COURT: Okay. So it is in the body, but it is not in the preamble.
J. KELLY: Yes. That's my mistake.
THE COURT: Okay.
J. KELLY: Yeah.
THE COURT: So let's -- let me check that. So maybe it just requires a new draft order.
J. KELLY: And we can -- I can undertake to have that filed with the court this week.
THE COURT: Okay. I just want to see. Okay.
So, Mr. Davison, are you admitting that the possession of the knife was unlawful because that is a requirement for 491(9)(d).
C. DAVISON: For the limited purpose of the forfeiture order, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
C. DAVISON: We will make that admission.
THE COURT: Okay. Perfect. So just file a new draft order.
And, Mr. Clerk, just bring it to me in chambers, and it will issue.
THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
So, Ms. Rabesca, a suspended sentence, I am sure your lawyers have explained that to you, but what it means is that for the next 12 -- I am not imposing a specific sentence. You are going to be on probation, but suspending the passing of a sentence means that if you breach your conditions, if something happens, the Crown can bring it back before me so that I can impose a different sentence at that time. Do you understand that?
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
THE COURT: I hope you take advantage of the help that is going to be given to you now, going to counselling and doing the things that you need to address your issues and hopefully be reunited with your children.
THE ACCUSED: Yes.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings transcribed from the audio recording to the best of our skill and ability.
Judicial amendments have been applied to this transcript.
Dated at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, this 14th day of April, 2026.
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada
____________________________________
Veritext Legal Solutions, Canada