Territorial Court

R. v. ALICE JOYCE MANTLA
	2010 NWTTC 03
	File: T-CR-2010-000384


	IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

BETWEEN:

	HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
	

	- and -


	ALICE JOYCE MANTLA
	




	REASONS FOR DECISION

	of the

	HONOURABLE JUDGE ROBERT D. GORIN



Heard at:				Behchoko, Northwest Territories
April 14, 2010

Date of Decision:			May 10, 2010

Counsel for the Crown:		A. Paquin

Counsel for the Accused:		J. Bran


	IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


BETWEEN:

	HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
	

	- and -


	ALICE JOYCE MANTLA
	



Introduction

[1]	On April 14th of this year, I found the Accused not guilty of willfully obstructing two police officers engaged in the execution of their duties, contrary to section 129 of the Criminal Code.  I stated that written reasons would follow.  My reasons are set out in the following paragraphs.

Issue

[2]	The charge before the court alleged that the Accused:

“on or about the 16th day of January, 2010 at or near the Hamlet of Behchoko in the Northwest Territories did willfully obstruct Constable R.B. and Constable K.M. of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police engaged in the execution of their duties conducting an investigation of a suicidal female by preventing members from entering a residence, contrary to section 129(1) of the Criminal Code.”


[3]	The central issue in this case was whether, by telling the two RCMP officers not to enter her residence, the Accused willfully obstructed them in the execution of their duties.

Facts

[4]	The uncontradicted evidence presented by the Crown established that on the date in question the Accused phoned RCMP dispatch and reported that her daughter was grossly intoxicated and “talking suicidal”.  The Accused said that she did not want her daughter staying at the house because she was “acting crazy”.  The two RCMP officers were dispatched and drove 15 kilometres from Edzo to the Accused’s residence in Rae. Both Edzo and Rae are part of the larger community of Behchoko.

[5]	Once they arrived at the Accused’s residence they banged on the door.  There was no response.  They contacted the OCC operator by radio and asked that the Accused’s residence be contacted by telephone. OCC complied.  However, the telephone was not answered.  The two officers then left the residence.  However, due to concerns about the well-being of the Accused’s daughter, they returned to the residence 10 or 15 minutes later.

[6]	The police again knocked on the door.  When there was still no response, they took out a sledgehammer and prepared to break down the door.

[7]	The Accused opened a window and started yelling.  She said that her daughter was sleeping and told the two officers to go away.  She advised them that if they broke her door she would contact her Chief and that he would deal with them.  One of the officers tried to engage the Accused in further conversation.  However, the Accused slammed the window and shut the curtains.  The two RCMP officers then left.


Analysis

[8]	The charge alleges that the Accused prevented the RCMP officer from entering the residence and by doing so obstructed them in the conduct of their investigation into the well-being of her daughter.  I found that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused actually “prevented” the two police officers from entering her home.  Had they truly felt it necessary to take further steps they would have done so.

[9]	A person is not guilty of obstructing a peace officer through nonfeasance unless there is a legal duty to act arising at common law or by statute:  R. v. Lavin, (1992), 76 CCC (3d) 279, 16 C.R. (4th) 112 (Que.C.A.).  In this case the Crown particularized the charge so that it alleged that the Accused “prevented” the two officers from entering the residence.  On its face the charge appears to allege that the Accused committed a positive act which impeded the officers from entering a home. In reality she simply made it clear that she was not giving them permission to enter her home.  She was not legally required to provide such permission.  It was when she made it clear that she was denying the RCMP permission to enter her home and was taking exception to the prospect of her property being damaged that the RCMP left.  I find that her conduct can more properly be described as nonfeasance rather than misfeasance.

[10]	As stated, notwithstanding that the Accused ultimately denied the RCMP permission to enter her residence, they could have entered had they felt it necessary to do so.  I think that the real reason they did not enter her home was because after they had been advised that the Accused’s daughter was asleep, they determined that doing so was unnecessary.

[11]	As well, I think that it was not proved that the Accused, simply ignored the earlier phone-call and requests for entry.  Based on the evidence, it may well have been that the Accused was otherwise occupied with her daughter prior to the point that she told the two officers they could not enter her home.


Conclusion

[12]	For the foregoing reasons, I concluded that the necessary element of willful obstruction was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[13]	In saying this, I appreciate the frustration experienced by the two officers.  I will add that there is no doubt that both of them were acting in the lawful execution of their duties.



	Robert D. Gorin
	C.J.T.C.

Dated at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
this 10 day of May, 2010



T-1-CR-2010000384	



IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES




BETWEEN:

	HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
	

	- and -


	ALICE JOYCE MANTLA

	





REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE ROBERT D. GORIN