R. v. Etuangat (L.), (2009) 457 A.R. 172 (CA)

• Judge: Johnson, J.A.
• Court: Nunavut Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 05, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Nunavut
• Citations: (2009), 457 A.R. 172 (CA);2009 NUCA 1

R. v. Etuangat (L.) (2009), 457 A.R. 172 (CA);

      457 W.A.C. 172

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. MY.108

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Luke Etuangat (respondent)

(10-08-9 CAS; 2009 NUCA 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Etuangat (L.)

Nunavut Court of Appeal

Johnson, J.A.

March 18, 2009.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of spousal assault, one count of possession of marijuana, and four counts of breach of undertaking.

The Nunavut Court of Justice imposed a suspended sentence and two years' probation. The Crown appealed.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal, per Johnson, J.A., denied the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused, an aboriginal, pleaded guilty to one count of spousal assault, one count of possession of marijuana, and four counts of breach of undertaking - After rejecting a conditional sentence for legal issues, the sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence and two years' probation - The judge emphasized rehabilitation because the accused had made progress since the assault and had enrolled in an educational (pre-trades) program - A long probation period would keep him in the program - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to give any weight to the principles of denunciation and deterrence and overemphasizing rehabilitation, and by failing to impose a conditional sentence instead of probation - The Crown further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly unfit because the trial judge did not take into account the aggravating factor of the accused's criminal record - The accused had drinking issues - Difficult upbringing - Subjected to domestic violence as a child - The Nunavut Court of Appeal, per Johnson, J.A., denied the appeal - The court held that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to provide reasons that allowed for a meaningful appellate review - Thus the appellate court had to determine the appropriate sentence in the circumstances - The court rejected the Crown's arguments and stated that it was not satisfied that the sentencing judge erred in imposing probation after finding that he could not use a conditional sentence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5810.2

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Reasons for sentence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5861

Sentence - Assault - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Powers of appeal court - The Nunavut Court of Appeal, per Johnson, J.A., noted that the standard of review on a sentence appeal was set out in R. v. B.T. (2007 NUCA): "Absent an error in principle, over emphasis of factors, or a failure to consider relevant factors, an appellate court should only interfere to vary a sentence when the sentence is demonstrably unfit or clearly unreasonable ..." - See paragraph 19.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Coulthard (P.W.) (2005), 384 A.R. 353; 367 W.A.C. 353; 2005 ABCA 413, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Brown (C.R.) et al., [1993] C.N.L.R. 116; 125 A.R. 150; 14 W.A.C. 150; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. J.K.I. (1989), 32 O.A.C. 287; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 173; 36 C.R.(3d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bates (D.R.) (2000), 134 O.A.C. 156; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Louison (W.C.) (2008), 310 Sask.R. 217; 423 W.A.C. 217; 2008 SKCA 69, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Anablak, 2008 NUCJ 9, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ammaklak, 2008 NUCJ 27, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Pudlat (J.G.) (2005), 404 A.R. 389; 394 W.A.C. 389; 2005 NUCA 3, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Akkuardjuk (T.) (2007), 422 A.R. 244; 415 W.A.C. 244; 2007 NUCA 6, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Compton, 2007 CarswellNfld 91 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kailek, [1993] Y.J. No. 95 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Koaha (J.) (2008), 432 A.R. 343; 424 W.A.C. 343; 2008 NUCA 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. B.T., [2007] A.R. Uned. 156; 2007 NUCA 3, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Butler (D.A.) (2008), 270 N.S.R.(2d) 225; 865 A.P.R. 225; 2008 NSCA 102, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McLean (L.J.) (2004), 357 A.R. 321; 334 W.A.C. 321; 2004 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Jeannette Gevikoglu, for the appellant;

Andrew Mahar, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 5, 2009, by Johnson, J.A., of the Nunavut Court of Appeal, who filed the following reasons for judgment at Iqaluit, Nunavut, on March 18, 2009.