R. v. J.I., 2015 ABPC 184

• Judge: MacDonald, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABPC 184;[2015] A.R. TBEd. SE.007

R. v. J.I., [2015] A.R. TBEd. SE.007

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. SE.007

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. J.I. (accused)

(130790355P1; 2015 ABPC 184)

Indexed As: R. v. J.I.

Alberta Provincial Court

MacDonald, P.C.J.

September 1, 2015.

Summary:

The 58 year old accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her two and half year old foster child. The child came into the accused's care after having extensive dental work for rotting teeth. For almost two months, the accused on a daily basis, would squeeze the child's face with her hand to facilitate opening the child's mouth to make her eat and to get her to brush her teeth. The result was bruising on the child's face. The accused had extensive training and experience as a foster parent. As a result of her loss of employment as a foster parent, her and her husband's home was foreclosed on. The Crown and the accused jointly submitted that a discharge, conditional upon the completion of 12 to 18 months' probation, with conditions, was a fit and appropriate sentence. If convicted, the accused would not be eligible for reconsideration as a foster parent.

The Alberta Provincial Court stated that the recommendation for sentencing was a joint recommendation, not a joint submission, given the lack of quid pro quo. The recommendation was owed deference and careful consideration, but had less weight and was due less deference that a joint submission. The abuse of a person under the age of 18 and abuse by a person in a position of trust were both statutory aggravating factors. Although a discharge would be in the best interest of the accused, it would be contrary to the public interest and would offend the proportionality principle. General deterrence and denunciation, and specific deterrence and denunciation, did not require a jail sentence. Given the substantial financial difficulties that the accused suffered after being charged, a fine was not an appropriate sentence. The court suspended the passing of sentence and placed the accused on probation for 18 months.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by an identification ban under s. 26.2 of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act and Maritime Law Book's editorial policy.

Criminal Law - Topic 4431

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissal - Conditional discharge in lieu of conviction - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 5628

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Circumstances when fine appropriate - See paragraph 88.

Criminal Law - Topic 5704

Punishments (sentence) - Suspended sentence - Circumstances when appropriate - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - See paragraphs 44 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Guilty plea - See paragraph 35.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Offences involving breach of trust - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 5833.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Child abuse - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Representations of counsel - See paragraphs 44 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5861

Sentence - Assault - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Counsel:

L. Trahan, for the Crown;

P. Foisy, for the accused.

This matter was heard on January 19, 2015, by MacDonald, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, whose following judgment was delivered orally on August 11, 2015, and filed at Edmonton, Alberta, September 1, 2015.