SCHERMAN QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2018 SKQB 197 Date: 2018 07 10 Docket: CRM 135 of 2016 Judicial Centre: Battleford BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and GORDON JOSEPH FIDDLER Counsel: Suzanne M. Reid for the Crown Greg A. Chovin for the accused SENTENCING DECISION DOVELL J. July 10, 2018 [1] Although Gordon Joseph Fiddler was originally charged with second degree murder with regard to the death of his cousin Tommy Fiddler, on November 3, 2017, the Court found him not guilty of second degree murder but guilty of manslaughter. written decision of November 3, 2017, outlines the Court’s reasons for the verdict of guilty of manslaughter and it is not the intention of the Court to repeat once again all of the reasons for that verdict but only the relevant facts to this sentencing decision. [2] Earlier at the commencement of the trial on July 13, 2017, Gordon Joseph Fiddler pled guilty to possession of firearm while prohibited from doing so. That firearm was the weapon used by Gordon when he fatally shot Tommy once in the head on February 25, 2016, at the Waterhen Lake First Nation. [3] This sentencing decision is with regard to both the manslaughter conviction pursuant to s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, C-46, and his guilty plea to possession of firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code. [4] Since the Court’s November 3, 2017, decision both Crown and defence counsel have changed. The new defence counsel on January 10, 2018, requested stand-alone dedicated Gladue Report (R Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] SCR 688) be prepared by Christine Goodwin which the Court ordered as it was obvious to the Court from the evidence heard during the pre-trial applications and the trial proper that there were numerous Gladue factors that the Court should have further information about during the sentencing stage of this matter. The Court received the very thorough Gladue Report completed by Christine Goodwin on June 1, 2018, and counsel provided the Court with their sentencing submissions on June 8, 2018 referring to multiple, meaningful case law for the consideration of the Court. During the sentencing submissions the Crown presented six victim impact statements of the siblings of the victim Tommy Fiddler; two of his sisters and four of his brothers; collectively marked as Exhibit P12. This matter was adjourned until today’s date for formal sentencing. 2. Sentencing positions of the Crown and defence [5] It is the position of the Crown that global sentence of 15 years is appropriate in this case considering the multiple aggravating factors present including the use of firearm in the death of Tommy Fiddler; Gordon’s serious criminal record including 55 previous convictions 17 of which are for violent offences; Gordon being subject to firearms prohibition at the time of the offence; Gordon rewarding Tommy’s act of kindness in giving Gordon place to live with an act of violence and Gordon’s total lack of remorse. The Crown suggested that in the specific circumstances of this case one year concurrent sentence should be imposed for the possession of firearm while prohibited from doing so. While such charge can be considered by the Court in some cases as “separate and distinct” offence, in the circumstances of this case the Crown’s position was that it was appropriate to sentence Gordon to concurrent sentence to that of manslaughter. The Crown proposed that Gordon be given credit for the remand time he has spent since being arrested on February 25, 2016 at 1.5 to resulting in remand credit of years months as of today’s date. That would result in net global sentence of 11 years and months. [6] The Crown, however, is asking that the Court make an order pursuant to s. 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code which would require Gordon serve one half of his sentence before being eligible for parole or in this case further years 11 months before being eligible for parole if the Court imposed 15 year global sentence. [7] The Crown is also asking that the Court impose DNA order as manslaughter is primary designated offence, lifetime mandatory firearm prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code order and mandatory weapons forfeiture pursuant to s. 491(1)(a) of the Criminal Code with regard to the weapon used in the offence being Cooey, Model 39, single-shot bolt-action rifle, bearing Serial No. CTO18886. The Crown took no position with regard to the mandatory victim surcharge pursuant to s. 737 of the Criminal Code which would be $400.00 in this case and in default four days to be served. [8] It is the position of the defence that global sentence of eight years is appropriate in this case; the possession of firearm while prohibited from doing so conviction being one year concurrent sentence to an eight year sentence for manslaughter. The defence argued that an eight year sentence is in the mid-range of sentences imposed for manslaughter within the guidelines as provided within Hathway, 2008 SKQB 480 (CanLII), 327 Sask 129 [Hathway], and that this case is not an “exceptional” or “most unusual” offence which called for harsher sentence than was an acceptable sentence for manslaughter in this province. The defence argued that while serious offence, the circumstances of this case did not warrant the 15 year sentence being requested by the Crown. [9] Although Gordon personally wanted enhanced credit for the time he has spent on remand at rate greater than 1.5 to 1, defence counsel agreed that the remand credit being proposed by the Crown at rate of 1.5 to was reasonable. [10] The defence’s position is that it is not necessary or appropriate to impose s. 743.6(1) order in this case. The defence’s position is that the Court should not impose an order pursuant to s. 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code primarily as result of the Court having to recognize the multiple Gladue factors in this case that have to be addressed. To tie the hands of the Correctional Service Canada [CSC] in the handling of Gordon’s programming while in penitentiary addressing his multiple complex needs, the vast majority of which were Gladue related, would be counter-productive and not in anyone’s best interest. The defence suggests to let the CSC do their work without being impeded by the Court’s arbitrary imposition of such an order that would result in Gordon not being eligible for parole until he had served half of his sentence. It is suggested by the defence there may very well be restorative programs available that Gordon would be suitable for that could not be accessed if the Court made such an order. With regard to the ancillary orders being requested the defence did not take position. 3. Criminal Code Provisions [11] consider the following sections of the Criminal Code to be relevant and have taken them into consideration. Manslaughter 236 Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable (a) where firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to minimum punishment of imprisonment for term of four years; and (b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life. Purpose and Principles of Sentencing Purpose 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. Fundamental principle 718.1 sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Other sentencing principles 718.2 court that imposes sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (b) sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. Power of court to delay parole 743.6 (1) Notwithstanding subsection 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where an offender receives, on or after November 1, 1992, sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, including sentence of imprisonment for life imposed otherwise than as minimum punishment, on conviction for an offence set out in Schedule or II to that Act that was prosecuted by way of indictment, the court may, if satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence or the objective of specific or general deterrence so requires, order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or ten years, whichever is less. 4. The Gladue Report [12] The lengthy Gladue Report as prepared by Christine Goodwin was very helpful to the Court as it focused on Gordon as opposed to general aboriginal background information. In preparing the report Ms. Goodwin contacted eight members of Gordon’s family, Gordon himself and the A/Regional ATIP Liaison of CSC. She reviewed 19 documents and attached appendices to her report. Although it appears she did not have Gordon’s up‑to‑date criminal record she made reference to the information she had about his past criminal record. She identified on the final page of the report proper the following specific background factors to restorative justice considerations in Gordon’s case: Poverty Unstable home/housing Residential school Loss of culture and language Physical abuse Sexual abuse Alcohol and drug abuse Abuser Several children broken family life Criminal record. [13] As previously indicated, it was apparent to the Court during voir dire held with regard to the admissibility of recorded utterances Gordon made while in the police vehicle as he was being transported from Waterhen to the Meadow Lake RCMP detachment there were multiple Gladue factors to be addressed. Within those utterances Gordon disclosed multiple deep-rooted issues he had with “white men”, “the police” and “his community”. Those unresolved issues were also repeated by Gordon during the warned statement he gave to the RCMP at the Meadow Lake RCMP detachment. Gordon’s problems with alcohol and to what extent it had taken over his life were confirmed by his actions both before and after he shot his cousin Tommy on February 25, 2016. It was readily apparent to the Court that Gordon had longstanding unresolved issues regarding his upbringing and was very resentful of his community. These multiple Gladue factors to be addressed by Gordon were confirmed within the Gladue Report prepared by Christine Goodwin. 5. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [14] There are multiple aggravating factors to be considered by the Court including Gordon’s extensive serious criminal record since 1971. He has 55 convictions on his criminal record; 17 of which are for violent offences. It should be noted, however, that there are several significant gaps in his criminal record; the defence suggesting that those periods reflect times during which Gordon had temporarily overcome his demons with alcohol. Gordon’s use of firearm in the death of his disabled cousin is also very much an aggravating factor as well as the relationship as between Gordon and his cousin at the time of Tommy’s death. Tommy had allowed Gordon and his then partner, Ham, to live in his home as Gordon’s house had recently burned down. As described by the Crown; Tommy’s act of kindness was rewarded by an act of violence on Gordon’s part. It is apparent from the six victim impact statements filed that Tommy’s siblings are still afraid of what might possibly happen to them if Gordon were to ever come back to the reserve. As well, Gordon was on mandatory firearm prohibition at the time of the offence. Notwithstanding that firearm prohibition he willingly accepted firearm from niece to hunt rabbits and prairie chicken. Lastly, Gordon has shown no remorse since he in drunken stupor shot his cousin Tommy in the head for no apparent reason. As previously indicated, after Gordon was arrested and was being taken to the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment for processing he was recorded while in the police vehicle. As stated at paragraph 23 of the Court’s July 26, 2017 ruling on the voir dire, sampling of what Gordon said during that transport included: [23] All of the completely unsolicited statements made by Gordon during that one hour thirty-three minute audio recording can only be described as belligerent “vulgar rant” regarding his personal views of white men being rapists and pedophiles. Certain parts of his statements include what can be possibly interpreted as his daring the RCMP members to kill him. Such utterances as “Kill me. Shoot me today, you fuckers. I’ll dare you. don’t care. I’ll die for it.” And at page of the transcript of that indecent rant on the recording Gordon says: ... Fuck you guys. Fuck you goddamn white man and your system. Fuck that [unintelligible]. Fuckin’ fat bastard. killed him and loved it. killed him and I’ll kill him again. [unintelligible] kill him and killed him. [15] When asked as to whether or not he had anything to say before the Court sentenced him Gordon’s only concerns were that he had never had bail hearing, that the prosecutor who had conducted the trial had not bothered to show up for sentencing submissions and that he wanted to make it clear that there was no deliberation on his part to shoot Tommy. There was no mention of his being remorseful for the death of his cousin Tommy. The Crown’s position was that Gordon acting out potential “accident” defence during his warned statement was an indication that he was not remorseful for what he had done but was just trying to make up an excuse for what had happened. [16] On the other hand there is one huge mitigating factor and that is the multiple Gladue factors relevant to Gordon taken as a whole. Both of his parents attended residential schools. At the age of years old Gordon was also sent to residential school where he remained until he was 12 years old. While at the Beauval Indian Residential School Gordon was physically and sexually abused. Gordon’s cousin Sidney witnessed the atrocities that Gordon suffered while at the residential school. When Gordon returned home to Waterhen Gordon’s life spiraled out of control, he turning to drugs and alcohol. According to Gordon’s criminal record he then began criminal activities that would see him incarcerated for many years during his life. [17] Gordon has been chronic alcoholic for 50 years or since he was 14 years of age. On the date of sentencing submissions Gordon turned 65 an age when most people are thinking about retirement; Gordon is thinking about his foreseeable future being in federal penitentiary. [18] The Alberta Court of Appeal in LaBerge, 1995 ABCA 196 (CanLII), 165 AR 375, outlined number of factors court may want to consider in determining fit sentence for manslaughter. Those factors, although certainly not exhaustive, include characterization of the act itself, the choice of weapon used in the offence, the degree of force the offender used to perpetrate the act, the extent of the victim’s injuries, the degree of violence or brutality involved, the existence of any gratuitous violence, the degree of deliberation involved in the act, the extent to which the act reflects forethought or planning, the complexity of the act, what provoked the act, if anything, and the time that was taken to perpetrate the act. In other words, although not exclusive to manslaughter sentencing, the specifics of the offence, the victim and the offender must be carefully considered by the Court in considering an appropriate sentence for manslaughter as the circumstances of the offence of manslaughter are very diverse. [19] As stated by this Court in Hathway at paragraph 33: 33 The offence of manslaughter is unique offence in Canadian criminal jurisprudence in that it covers very broad spectrum of circumstances, all of which are characterized as possessing the criminal culpability required for the commission of the offence of manslaughter. The spectrum reflects the endless combination of circumstances which may give rise to the offence and ultimately, is an offence which for the purpose of sentencing, requires thorough analysis of the existing sentence precedents, the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. And at paragraph 36 the Court concluded: 36 In considering the relevant decisions of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and various decisions of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench which have not been subject to appeal, have concluded that the appropriate range of sentencing for the offence of manslaughter in the Province of Saskatchewan is between four years and 12 years. There are isolated instances of sentences less than four years, and sentences greater than 12 years, however they are indeed exceptional, and in my view, sentence falling outside of the range of four years to 12 years ought to occur only in the most unusual, exceptional or extenuating of circumstances. distillation of the sentencing principles articulated in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, along with the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, will result in the vast majority of instances, in sentence falling within this range. [20] In considering the range of sentences available for the offence of manslaughter this Court has also considered the comments of our Court of Appeal in Keepness, 2010 SKCA 69 (CanLII) at para 29, 359 Sask 34: 29 agree with this general review of the law, except for one refinement. The judge in Hathway describes sentences that fall outside the range as being “exceptional” or occurring “only in the most unusual, exceptional or extenuating circumstances.” As has been indicated, review of the case law bears out the statement that there is usual range for manslaughter at least for manslaughters involving brutality and alcohol or drugs from four to 12 years, but it overstates the matter to conclude that departures from range occur in the most unusual or exceptional circumstances only. This language may lead judge to conclude incorrectly that the lower and upper limits of the range are more fixed than they are, or that they are to be departed from in only the rarest of cases. No matter how one tries to delimit the type of case for which the range for manslaughter is being set, the description will remain nebulous and the circumstances variable. Correct application of the principles of sentencing should mean there are fewer sentences falling outside the range for manslaughter than within it, but in the exercise of their discretion, judges may depart, without introducing disparity, where the circumstances of the case are beyond those customarily found at the lower or upper ends of the range. [21] In this case there had been no fight, argument or violence between Tommy and Gordon before Tommy was shot by Gordon. As stated in paragraph 18 of the Court’s November 3, 2017 decision the facts of this case are not complex. [18] Ham assisted Gordon up the ramp, and after they entered the house, Gordon went straight to his bedroom with what was left of his case of Pilsner beer, muttering and babbling something in Cree to Tommy as he passed him in the living room. Michael and Tommy were sitting at table playing cards in the living room. Gordon made comment in Cree to Tommy as he passed him, “your mother had told me that you murdered your brother.” Ham went directly to the kitchen and tended to pot on the stove. Within moments, Gordon came back out from the bedroom and once again said to Tommy in Cree the same thing about Tommy’s mother having told him that Tommy was responsible for the death of his brother, Rocky. Tommy in Cree replied to Gordon “not to believe everything you hear,” after which Gordon pointed the gun at Tommy and shot him in the head and more specifically his right temple area. [22] While in severely drunken state Gordon shot Tommy once in the right temple area. Tommy died instantly. Gordon did not try to get away but just went back to his bedroom and fell asleep in his drunken stupor until the RCMP arrived and arrested him. accept that there was no forethought or planning on Gordon’s part in the shooting of Tommy. It happened very quickly and from all accounts from the eye witnesses in Tommy’s residence at the time this crime was totally senseless. [23] Although the Crown provided the Court with multiple cases, the Crown is relying primarily upon three cases: Hathway Ross, 2006 SKCA (SentDig) 16 [Ross] Stonechild, 2017 SKQB 138 (CanLII) [Stonechild] in support of its request for 15 year global sentence with no parole eligibility until Gordon has served half of that sentence pursuant to s. 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code. [24] The Court in sentencing an individual for any offence must sentence that specific person for the specific offence he or she has committed in the unique circumstances of that offence. There is no such thing as “simple” sentencing. Each sentencing takes on life of its own. [25] Amongst the multiple principles of sentencing is the provision of s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code which states that the sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. It is thus important that the Court review all of the cases provided to it by counsel but, in particular, the three cases the Crown is primarily relying upon in support of its position that 15 year sentence is appropriate in this case. [26] In Hathway the accused, age 49, pled guilty to manslaughter. He had an extensive criminal record including 57 prior convictions of which were for violent offences. The victim was his 84-year-old landlord who suffered 10 stab wounds, the most serious being the severing of his left jugular vein. That tragically resulted in the landlord bleeding to death. At the time of the offence the accused was intoxicated by alcohol and/or drugs and his attack on his landlord displayed sustained attack on vulnerable person. The accused was sentenced to 11.5 years less credit for his remand time of 7.5 years resulting in net sentence of years’ imprisonment. [27] There were no Gladue factors to be considered as Mr. Hathway was not aboriginal. [28] In Ross the accused was 54 years of age. joint submission by the defence and Crown was presented to the Court of 10 years with the provision that he must serve years before being eligible for parole. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal. The accused, who was drinking heavily at the time, shot the victim and the victim was killed instantly. The criminal record of the accused included three firearm charges and two alcohol offences, however, there was gap in his record from 1994 to 2006. The accused was not aboriginal and thus the Gladue factors were not consideration of the Court. [29] In Stonechild the 58-year-old accused was charged with second degree murder. jury returned verdict of manslaughter. He had lengthy criminal record including 63 convictions; of which were for violence. The victim was 84 years of age with mobility issues and was unable to defend himself. The victim had extended hospitality to the accused who in drunken “spur of the moment” event killed the victim who sustained minimum of 20 lacerations, all of which were consistent with his having been struck with his own cane. number of these blows were delivered to the victim’s face, some with sufficient force that both eyes were essentially destroyed, with one eye almost entirely displaced from its orbit. The victim was also stabbed with knife 14 times, with 12 knife wounds to his chest and to his abdomen. There were two additional stab wounds to the abdomen, apparently inflicted by screwdriver. There were multiple Gladue factors that the Court considered in sentencing the accused ultimately to 15 years. [30] Defence counsel provided the Court with six cases, of which two were manslaughter cases which resulted in sentences of four and one-half years and eight years. Although defence counsel indicated he was not intending to rely specifically on any of these cases, the cases were provided for the Court’s assistance only. [31] The Court has also considered the other case law as provided to it by counsel which resulted in sentences for manslaughter ranging from 1/2 years to 15 years. [32] At this juncture what the Court must decide is where within this spectrum of case law Gordon Fiddler fits in. Having considered all of the purposes and principles of sentencing as outlined in ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code including the totality principle and the Gladue factors the Court has determined that a global sentence of 10 years is appropriate in this case to be served in a federal institution on the manslaughter conviction. [33] Although s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code conviction has sometimes been treated by the courts as “separate and distinct” offence, in the circumstances of this case and as agreed by counsel for the Crown and defence the Court is prepared to impose concurrent sentence of one year to the ten year sentence the Court has imposed for the manslaughter conviction. [34] As agreed by counsel for the Crown and defence Gordon shall be given credit of three years, seven months pursuant to s. 719 of the Criminal Code for the time he has spent on remand since being arrested on February 25, 2016 to today’s date at the rate of 1.5 to 1. That results in net global sentence of six years, five months to be served in federal penitentiary. [35] The Court must lastly determine as to whether it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to section 743.6 of the Criminal Code. That section provides: Power of court to delay parole 743.6 (1) Notwithstanding subsection 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where an offender receives, on or after November 1, 1992, sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, including sentence of imprisonment for life imposed otherwise than as minimum punishment, on conviction for an offence set out in Schedule or II to that Act that was prosecuted by way of indictment, the court may, if satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence or the objective of specific or general deterrence so requires, order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or ten years, whichever is less. [36] The guiding principles are outlined in ss. (2) of s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code. Those guiding principles are expressed as “... the paramount principles which are to guide the court under this section are denunciation and specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation of the offender, in all cases, being subordinate to these paramount principles”. [37] Although the Crown provided the Court with no case law in support of its request for an order pursuant to s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code the Court is familiar with Zinck, 2003 SCC (CanLII), [2003] SCR 41 [Zinck]. Zinck held that the Crown must demonstrate foundation for such additional rigour in the sentencing of the offender. Specific relevant paragraphs of Zinck include: 30 The position of s. 743.6 in the Criminal Code signals that it should not be applied in routine manner. The power should not be exercised in mechanical or automatic way, nor invoked in connection with every jail term imposed for an offence covered by s. 743.6. The judge must once again apply the sentencing factors. And at paragraph 31: 31 the court must arrive at its conclusion as to whether this additional punishment is required. The prosecution has the burden of demonstrating that it is. The judge must satisfy himself or herself that the order is needed to reflect the objectives of sentencing, with awareness of the special weight ascribed by Parliament to the social imperatives of denunciation and deterrence. And lastly at paragraph 33: 33 The decision to delay parole remains out of the ordinary, but may and should be taken if, after the proper weighing of all factors, it appears to be required in order to impose form of punishment which is completely appropriate in the circumstances of the case. [38] The Court has concluded that it is not appropriate in this case to make an order pursuant to s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code. Denunciation and deterrence have already been figured prominently in my analysis in determining that a 10 year global sentence is appropriate in this case. There is thus no need for an order pursuant to s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code. The guiding factors as contained within s. 743.6 order have already been dealt with through the initial sentencing analysis. As stated by Justice Wilkinson in Smith, 2008 SKCA 20 (CanLII) at para 73, 307 Sask 45: 73 Section 743.6 has, on occasion, been scorned as the indiscriminate infliction of harsh punishment, the judicial application of salt to open wounds. It can, nonetheless, serve as companion piece in the sentencing process and as counterpoint, if necessary, when societal interests outweigh those of the individual, and rehabilitation, as sentencing objective, has been given legislative back seat. Conclusion [39] For all the reasons as outlined in this decision I have concluded that as to the manslaughter conviction a sentence of 10 years in a federal institution is an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this specific case. Credit needs to be given to Gordon for the time he has spent on remand since being arrested on February 25, 2016, to date pursuant to s. 719 of the Criminal Code. At the rate of 1.5 to 1 credit is to be given of three years, seven months. Gordon Fiddler shall therefore serve an additional six years, five months in a federal penitentiary with regard to the manslaughter conviction. [40] As to Count No. 2 on the Direct Indictment being the possession of a firearm while he was prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code I sentence Gordon Fiddler to a concurrent sentence of one year. [41] The Court is not prepared to make an order pursuant to s. 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code as the Court is not satisfied that it would be appropriate in Gordon Fiddler’s specific circumstances including the multiple Gladue factors to be considered and addressed in this case not only by the Court but CSC. Denunciation and deterrence have already been adequately considered by the Court and have concluded that it would not be appropriate to make such an order in this case. [42] direct the following ancillary orders: (a) Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, that sample of bodily substances be taken from Gordon Fiddler that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis; (b) Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, that Gordon Fiddler be prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition and explosive substance for life; (c) Pursuant to s. 114 of the Criminal Code, that Gordon Fiddler surrender to peace officer any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition and explosive substance and any authorization, license and registration certificate for the same within 14 days of this decision; (d) Pursuant to s. 491 of the Criminal Code, the Cooey, Model 39, single-shot bolt-action rifle, bearing Serial No. CTO18886 seized in the investigation of this offence is forfeited to Her Majesty and shall be disposed of as the Attorney General directs; and (e) The victim surcharge to be imposed pursuant to s. 737 of the Criminal Code in the amount of $400.00 shall be payable forthwith and in default of payment four days to be served consecutive to the sentence imposed today. J. M.L. DOVELL
HELD: The court sentenced the accused to a global sentence of 10 years for the manslaughter conviction. A one-year concurrent sentence was imposed for the conviction of prohibited possession of a firearm. The court gave him credit at the rate of 1:1.5 for his time on remand, resulting in a net global sentence of six years, five months to be served in a federal penitentiary. The Gladue report was considered and the background of the accused was assessed as an enormous mitigating factor. The court found that this was not an appropriate case to make an order pursuant to s. 743.6 of the Code both because of the multiple Gladue factors and because it had addressed the principles of denunciation and deterrence in the global sentence.