Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut

Citation: R. v. Audlakiak, 2020 NUCJ 41

Date: 20201214
Docket: 02-19-006
Registry: Iqaluit

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused: Ronald Audlakiak

________________________________________________________________________

Before: Madam Justice Cooper

Counsel (Crown): P. Plourde

Counsel (Accused): S. White

Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut

Date Heard: October 26, 2020
Matters: Sentencing for offences under Criminal Code of Canada,
RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 244.2(1)(a), 87, and 85(1)(a)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

 2

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Ronald Audlakiak is before the court to be sentenced on a charge of

intentionally discharging a firearm into a place knowing or being
reckless as to whether another person is present in the place,
mischief, and pointing a firearm.

II. EVIDENCE

[2] On February 24, 2019, Ronald Audlakiak was intoxicated. He went to

the home of JN to confront his girlfriend, NQ, who was at the
residence. Ronald and his girlfriend got into a fight at the residence.
JN and JA, a visitor at the house, intervened to break up the fight.

[3] Ronald left the house. Shortly after he left, JA also left. JA departed
on his skidoo and went to a shack nearby. JN and JQ stayed at the
residence and locked the door after the others had left.

[4] After leaving the residence Ronald obtained a semi-automatic rifle, a

Simonov model type 56 SKS. After obtaining the rifle he was walking
by the shack where JA had parked his skidoo. Ronald shot at the
skidoo. It is not clear how many times he shot at the skidoo, but it was
more than once.

[5] People who lived nearby heard the shots and saw Ronald with the
rifle. They called the RCMP for assistance.

[6] Ronald carried on the home of JN. When he arrived, he knocked on

the door and his girlfriend, NQ, opened it. Ronald pointed the rifle at
NQ's head. NQ swung her body back and Ronald fired the rifle.
Ronald pushed NQ into the house. He was looking for JN and asked
where he was.

[7] JN had heard the shot. He also heard Ronald asking for him. JN was
understandably concerned that Ronald wanted to shoot him. JN
escaped the residence by climbing out of a bedroom window.

[8] NQ sat down on the living room couch and closed her eyes. Ronald
discharged the rifle at least four more times before finally leaving the
house. Fortunately, none of the shots hit anyone.

[9] Neighbours saw Ronald leave the house with the rifle.The RCMP
were called.
 3

[10] A short time later Ronald was found by the police. He was walking
and he no longer had the rifle. Ronald was arrested. Upon being
searched incidental to arrest two rifle rounds were found in his pocket.
He told the police that he was going to kill JN.

[11] There were a total of five shots taken inside the residence. One shot
penetrated the door handle of the bathroom and carried on through
the door frame and into the bathroom, through the sink. One shot
penetrated a radio in the living room. Another shot went into the
exterior wall of the living room. Two shots were into the ceiling, one in
a hallway area and one above the couch in the living room.

[12] In addition to the bullet holes, there was also other damage to the
house and its contents.

[13] The firearm was recovered in Ronald's house, along with an empty
ammunition box and a trigger lock.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[14] The Crown seeks a global sentence of five years, broken down as
follows:
• discharging a firearm: five years;
• pointing a firearm: two years, concurrent; and
• mischief: 180 days, concurrent.

[15] The Defence seeks a global sentence of four to four and half years.

IV. VICTIM

[16] NQ has provided a victim impact statement. Since the incident she
suffers from depression, post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and panic
attacks. She feels anger and sadness. She struggles to cope with
daily activities and has difficulties interacting with others. Her
relationships with family and close friends have become distant.

[17] NQ had been living with Ronald at the time and has lost her housing.
Her young son was supposed to return to the community, but those
plans were cancelled following the incident.

[18] NQ continues to be fearful of Ronald and is concerned about what will

happen when he is released from jail and returns to the community.
 4

V. CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER

[19] The court has had the benefit of a pre-sentence report.

[20] Ronald grew up in Qikiqtarjuaq. His parents separated when he was

six years old. His father moved to Iqaluit and Ronald continued to live
in Qikiqtarjuaq with his mother and two older sisters.

[21] Ronald did not do well school and dropped out in grade seven. He is
essentially illiterate. Despite this he has managed to gain good work.
He worked for four years for First Air. He also manages to get short
term positions. At the time of his arrest he was working for the
Hamlet.

[22] Ronald also hunts when he has the opportunity and helps to support
his family in that way.

[23] Ronald was 23 years old at the time of the incident. He and NQ had
been in a relationship for some time. They have one child together.
The child is in care.

[24] Ronald has previously been convicted in 2017 of assault causing

bodily harm.

[25] Ronald's mother was interviewed for the pre-sentence report. She
describes a very concerning aspect of Ronald's character, that being
his anger. The mother is afraid of Ronald. Even at the time of the
preparation of the pre-sentence report, while in custody, Ronald was
displaying fits of anger to his mother on the telephone. The writer of
the pre-sentence report was also on the receiving end of Ronald's
anger when he was contacted to be interviewed for the report.

[26] It was uncontrollable rage and jealously that contributed to the

offending behaviour. Little seems to have occurred since the offence
to temper those tendencies.
 5

[27] I must also consider Ronald's circumstances as an Inuit offender, as

mandated by section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and the Supreme
Court of Canada's decisions in R v Gladue and R v Ipeelee. As
stated by this court in R v Eegeesiak (unreported):

The systemic factors that influence criminality in Nunavut are well

known and well documented. Residential schools and their inter-
generational impact; over crowded, sub-standard housing; poverty;
low levels of education and employment; high rates of alcohol and
substance abuse; high rates of domestic violence and sexual abuse;
high rates of suicide; all contribute to a crime rate and incarceration
rate significantly higher than the national average. (at para 20)

VI. ANALYSIS

[28] The offence of intentionally discharging a firearm into a place while

knowing or being reckless as to whether anyone is there is punishable
by a mandatory minimum punishment of four years imprisonment.

[29] The Nunavut Court of Appeal, in R v Lyta, 2013 NUCA 10, considered
the impact of a mandatory minimum sentence on the analysis which a
judge must undertake when sentencing. The Court rejected the notion
that the mandatory minimum sentence is the sentence which should
be imposed except in instances where the application of general
sentencing principles calls for a higher punishment. Conversely, the
Court did not endorse the approach that the mandatory minimum
sentence is reserved for the “best offenders” and the “best cases”.
Rather, the fact that there is a mandatory minimum sentence is one of
the factors the Court must consider when determining the appropriate
sentence. The fact that there is a mandatory minimum sentence will,
practically speaking, have an inflationary effect on the sentences
imposed.

[30] The mandatory minimum penalty recognizes the high degree of moral
culpability inherent in the offence.

[31] The primary principles of sentencing for such an offence are

denunciation and deterrence. It is the circumstances of the offence
that must be given primary consideration.

[32] In the case of R v Oqallak, 2018 NUCJ 35, sentencing precedents

from this jurisdiction for these types of offences were reviewed:
 6

[44] In R v Ishulutak (25 May 2001), Iqaluit, 08-00-481-1 (NUCJ)

[Ishulutak], the offender was convicted of three counts of discharging
a firearmwith intent to endanger lives. The victims of the charges were
two police officers and a civilian. The offender was also convicted of
endangering the lives of people by shooting at them. The offender had
a substantial criminal record. A global sentence of seven years, for all
the offences, was imposed.

[45] In R v Sangoya (4 April 2002), Iqaluit, 11-01-108 (NUCJ)

[Sangoya], the youthful offender, acquired two firearms, and over a
three hour period fired 35 shots into the RCMP residences, the home
of the special constable, and various other places throughout the
community. The offender shot and killed a dog. There was some
planning and thought put into the incident. RCMP officers were
specifically sought out and targeted. The offender had prior
convictions, including youth court convictions for firearms offences.
The sentence imposed on the discharging a firearm offence was four
years, in addition to approximately eight months spent in pre-trial
custody.

[46] In R v Utye, 2013 NUCJ 14 (CanLII) [Utye], the offender

obtained a rifle and headed towards the police residences. A youth
went to the police residences to warn them. Two police officers and
the youth sought refuge in the detachment, which the offender shot
into 13 times knowing that people were inside, and after choosing a
good vantage point from which to take aim. He had a youth record
which included a firearms offence. He was sentenced to seven years in
custody.

[47] In Lyta, RCMP were awakened when the offender shot into
their residences during the night. In addition to a police officer, there
was a wife and a child in each residence. Seven shots hit the
residences. Eleven shots in total were fired. The officers and their
wives spent two-to-three hours trapped in their homes waiting for help
to arrive. On appeal, the sentence imposed was five years custody.

[48] In Sangoya, Lyta, and Utye the offenders all obtained rifles and
then went to specifically target police officers. Seeking out police
officers showed a level of planning and forethought. This aspect was a
significantly aggravating factor in each of those cases.

[49] This is to be contrasted with the cases of R v Josephee, (14 July

2010), Iqaluit 08-09-418 (NUCJ) [Josephee] and R v Mikijuk, 2017
NUCJ 2 (CanLII) and 2017 NUCA 5 (CanLII) [Mikijuk].
 7

[50] In Josephee, the offender had a rifle and was near the high
school. Police were called, and when it appeared that the offender was
going to enter the school three shots were fired at him. In response, he
fired one shot at the police. On the charge of discharging a firearm, a
sentence of four years was imposed.

[51] Mikijuk was a situation where the police were called because an
intoxicated and suicidal Mr. Mikijuk was inside a residence. A two
day standoff ensued, during which the offender fired a total of 11
shots, seven inside the residence, and four through windows to the
outside. A sentence of four years was imposed.

[33] Subsequent to Oqallak, the Court of Appeal has had the opportunity
to address the issue of sentencing for these types of offences. In R v
Itturiligaq, 2020 NUCA 6, the Court of Appeal upheld the
constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty and found that a
sentence of four years was appropriate for a youthful, first time
offender who fired a single shot at the roofline of a residence after his
girlfriend refused to leave the residence and come home with him.

[34] In R v Ookowt, 2020 NUCA 5, the four-year mandatory minimum

sentence was imposed on an offender who fired a single shot through
the window of a house after an altercation between the offender and
someone who the offender felt had bullied him for years.

[35] The offences in this matter are extremely serious. Not only did Ronald
discharge numerous shots in the house when he knew people were in
the house, his stated intention was to kill one of the occupants. He
pointed a loaded firearm at close range at his girlfriend. It was her
quick thinking and not good planning on Ronald’s part that put her out
of the line of fire when the firearm was discharged just a moment after
being pointed at her.

[36] The circumstances of the entire event were characterized by acts of

intimidation and control. His girlfriend, the mother of his child, was the
target of his bullying and violence. The domestic context of the
offences is an aggravating factor, as is the fact that as an Inuk
woman, his girlfriend is part of a vulnerable group.

[37] Ronald's circumstances and character do little to mitigate. As

previously discussed, his underlying deep anger appears to remain.
He has little insight into the issues that bring him before the court.
 8

[38] The guilty plea is a mitigating factor as it does show an acceptance of

responsibility. It also ensured that the girlfriend did not have to testify,
which would have been difficult for her.

VII. CONCLUSION

[39] The aggravating factors of these offences call for a sentence greater
than the mandatory minimum. The sentence is as follows:
• on the charge of discharging a firearm: 5 years (1,825 days);
• on the charge of pointing a firearm: 2 years concurrent (730
days); and
• on the charge of mischief to the skidoo: 180 days, concurrent.
Total sentence: 1,825 days.

A. Pre-trial custody

[40] Ronald has been in custody since February 24, 2019, a total of 653
days. He is entitled to enhanced credit at a rate of 1:1.5, for credit of
979 days. The sentence remaining to be served is 846 days.

B. Ancillary orders

[41] There will be a section 109 firearms prohibition for 10 years. There
will be a s. 113 exemption. There will be a DNA order as this is a
primary designated offence. The victim of crime surcharge is waived
for reasons of hardship. While in custody Harry will not have any
contact with NQ, JN, or JA. Exhibits seized by the RCMP will be
forfeited.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 14th day of December, 2020

___________________
Justice S. Cooper
Nunavut Court of Justice