R. v. Ilg (D.R.), (2009) 331 Sask.R. 151 (CA)

• Judge: Lane, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 10, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2009), 331 Sask.R. 151 (CA);2009 SKCA 76

R. v. Ilg (D.R.) (2009), 331 Sask.R. 151 (CA);

    460 W.A.C. 151

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.062

Dwayne Raymond Ilg (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(No. 1639; 2009 SKCA 76)

Indexed As: R. v. Ilg (D.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Lane, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A.

June 10, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was convicted on two counts of uttering death threats contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge imposed an 18 month jail term on one count and a 12 month jail term (consecutive) on the second count. After giving him five months' credit for time spent on remand, the judge imposed a custodial sentence of 25 months. The accused appealed both his convictions and his sentence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

Criminal Law - Topic 1565

Threats - Intention or mens rea - The accused was convicted on two counts of uttering death threats contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code - Respecting the first offence, the accused went to the home of the complainant, with whom he had had a "volatile and abusive" common law type relationship, about one month after serving a prison term for offences respecting the complainant - He banged on her door, wanted her to go for a drink and refused to leave - The complainant threatened to call the police - The accused then stated "Do you want me to kill you before I leave? I'd like to. I want to." - Three months later the accused was upset because he was banned from a local bar - He went to another complainant's home and made a death threat to the complainant's wife after she threatened to call the police - He then drove to the complainant's place of employment and made a death threat to him - He stated, inter alia, "If you phone the cops on me, I definitely will kill you." - The accused appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding that the requirement that the threats were "uttered with the intent to intimidate or instill fear" was met - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejected the argument - It seemed entirely apparent that the accused's statements were made for the purpose of intimidating or instilling fear in his victims - See paragraphs 2 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - The accused was convicted on two counts of uttering death threats - Respecting the first offence, the accused went to the home of the complainant, with whom he had had a "volatile and abusive" common law type relationship, about one month after serving a lengthy prison term for offences respecting the complainant - He banged on her door, wanted her to go for a drink and refused to leave - He made a death threat after she threatened to call the police - Three months later the accused was upset because he was banned from a local bar - He went to another complainant's home and made a death threat to the complainant's wife and then drove to the complainant's place of employment and made a death threat to him after the complainant threatened to call the police - He had an extensive record (50 convictions) which included several convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm - The trial judge imposed an 18 month jail term on one count and a 12 month jail term (consecutive) on the second count - After giving him five months' credit for time spent on remand, the judge imposed a custodial sentence of 25 months - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's sentence appeal - The sentences imposed were substantial - However, given the accused's criminal background, his history with the victims and the specific nature of the offences in issue, the sentences imposed were not demonstrably unfit - The trial judge was entitled to make the sentences consecutive as the underlying offences involved different victims, they took place in different places and they occurred almost three months apart - See paragraphs 1 to 5 and 9 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 5895

Sentence - Threats - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5803 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Clemente (V.F.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758; 168 N.R. 310; 95 Man.R.(2d) 161; 70 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Cantell (H.J.) (2003), 232 Sask.R. 206; 294 W.A.C. 206; 2003 SKCA 53, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Wernicke, 2002 SKCA (SentDig) 21, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Sewap, 2001 SKCA (SentDig) 12, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Pederson (D.G.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 219; 140 W.A.C. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Badger, 2000 SKCA (SentDig) 67, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. H.J.L., 2005 SKCA (SentDig) 18, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Brass, 2004 SKCA (SentDig) 11, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Mallot, 2001 SKCA (SentDig) 48, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. McKenzie, 2000 SKCA (SentDig) 15, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Don Mullord, Q.C., for the appellant;

William Campbell, for the Crown.

These appeals were heard on June 10, 2009, by Lane, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, when the decision of the court was delivered orally. Richards, J.A., filed the following written reasons for the court on June 30, 2009.