R. v. Ituluk, 2018 NUCJ 21
R. v. Ituluk, 2018 NUCJ 21
R. v. Ituluk, 2018 NUCJ 21
________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] The accused entered a guilty plea before me on July 19, 2018, for
breaching his Recognizance under section 810.2 of the Criminal
Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, (Criminal Code) on April 9, 2018, by
consuming alcohol. At the plea, with the agreement of Defence
Counsel, the Crown also read as background the facts of another
similar breach that occurred in January 2018 contrary to section 811.
II. BACKGROUND
[2] The circumstances of the January breach are that Mr. Ituluk was
intoxicated in a public place when he was approached by the police.
He refused to give his name to the police and was arrested for
obstruction of justice. The police found the name of the accused from
other sources and discovered that he was on the Peace Bond with the
no alcohol condition. On April 9, Mr. Ituluk was again found
intoxicated outside a residence occupied by a female. He was then
arrested for causing a disturbance. He was charged with breaching
the Peace Bond by drinking alcohol.
[3] The background for the imposition of the Peace Bond are stated in
the affidavit of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Sgt. Matco
Sirotic sworn on May 26, 2018.
[4] On May 27, 2017, the informant RCMP Sgt. Matco Jonathan swore
an information to obtain a Peace Bond under section 810.2. In
support of the application, he filed an affidavit that deposed that on
April 10, 2017, he had received information from Correctional
Services Canada (CSC) indicating that Mr. Ituluk would be released
from incarceration in a penitentiary on June 9, 2017. He was informed
that Mr. Ituluk was a first time federal offender serving a three years,
seven months and 15 day sentence for sexual assault, fail to comply
with conditions, and an assault on a peace officer. CSC indicated that
Mr. Ituluk had demonstrated little insight into his violence and sexual
offences.
[5] A criminal records check revealed that Mr. Ituluk had convictions that
included five sexual assaults, mischief under $5000, fail to comply
with an undertaking, and assault on a peace officer. A Canadian
Police Informant Centre (CPIC) check revealed that Mr. Ituluk was
identified as a violent individual and prohibited from possessing
firearms.
3
[6] The circumstances behind the last sexual assault conviction were that
Mr. Ituluk was drinking and smoking pot with his aunt. He forced his
aunt down to the floor and had full sexual intercourse without her
consent.
[8] Two previous victims of his sexual assaults filed impact statements
that indicated that Mr. Ituluk’s actions had left them scared and
lacking motivation.
[9] On January 22, 2014, Mr. Ituluk’s parole officer prepared a Criminal
Profile Report that indicated that he blacked out and had no memory
of the sexual offences. When recounting the events he laughed and
appeared to be amused by the situation. The report indicates that he
had shown no remorse for his victims and did not have a clear
improvement plan for the future.
[11] On January 15, the Parole Board prepared a decision sheet for Mr.
Ituluk that indicates that if he was released he was likely to commit a
sexual offence involving a child or an offence causing death or
serious bodily to another person, before the expiration of his
4
[12] On May 11, 2016, and September 9, 2016, Mr. Ituluk’s participation in
programs was suspended because of unauthorized absences.
[13] Mr. Ituluk is 32 years old and grew up in Qikiqtarjuaq and Kimmirut.
Although the complainant in Mr. Ituluk’s last offence objected to his
return to Iqaluit, Mr. Ituluk was released in Iqaluit and was
immediately served with the application for the Peace Bond.
[14] Based on above information, Justice Tulloch ordered that Mr. Ituluk
enter into a 12-month Peace Bond, commencing on June 19, 2017,
that included a term that he must abstain absolutely from the
consumption or possession of alcohol.
[15] Mr. Ituluk obtained employment at the Frobisher Inn and at the Quick
Stop convenience store, and found accommodation at the men’s
shelter in Iqaluit.
[19] Defence Counsel emphasized the fact that Mr. Ituluk had complied
with the Peace Bond for almost seven months before the first breach.
He did not commit any substantive offences while he was intoxicated
and his completion of the substance abuse course demonstrates that
he is taking steps to deal with his alcohol problem contrary to what
CSC states in the information used to obtain the bond.
[22] In R v Green, 2013 ONCJ 423, the accused twice breached a section
810.2 order. The accused had drug and alcohol problems that were
the underlying cause of most of his offending behaviour. He was
exposed to alcohol and violence as a child and lost his sister in a
house fire. Both parents were residential school survivors. He lacked
insight into his problems and was a high risk for potential sexual
violence. There was a possibility that he had Fetal Alcohol Effects.
The Court imposed a sentence of four months in jail.
IV. APPLICATION
[25] As noted in the CSC history, there is a high risk that the accused will
reoffend with sexual violence because his history of sexual violence
had escalated in frequency and severity over time and because he
engaged in extreme minimization or denial of past sexual violence.
His historic criminal conduct occurred while he was so intoxicated by
alcohol that he had blackouts. He did not complete programming
while in the penitentiary and showed a lack of remorse for his victims.
[26] The breaches of drinking alcohol clearly elevated the risk the accused
would commit other sexual crimes as he had in the past. There is a
nexus between the breach and risk to the public. As a result, I am
satisfied that a term in jail is required to protect the public. However,
this case is not one of the worst calling for the maximum sentence.
The accused did not commit any other crimes while intoxicated and
managed to stay out of trouble for seven months. He also
demonstrated some insight into his alcohol problems by taking the
substance abuse programming at the Baffin Correctional Centre. He
has also been actively employed and has held down two jobs.
V. DISPOSITION
[27] I am satisfied that a jail sentence of 240 days will satisfy the
deterrence required while also recognizing the apparent change of
attitude of Mr. Ituluk to his alcohol issues. Mr. Ituluk will also receive
157.5 days of pre-sentencing custody credit, making his custodial
sentence 83 days. He will also be on probation for a period of 1 year
on the same conditions as in the Peace Bond.
___________________
Justice E. Johnson
Nunavut Court of Justice