Information No. 15-008
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
KRISTEN COOPER
D E C I S I O N
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE L. GAUTHIER
On TUESDAY, AUGUST 11th, at GORE BAY, ONTARIO
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF JUSTICE J. SERRE, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED APRIL 21st, 2015
APPEARANCES:
J. Schaffer Counsel for the Crown
R. Gregor Counsel for Kristen Cooper
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11th, 2015
D E C I S I O N
GAUTHIER, J. (Orally):
Kristen Cooper is facing some serious – very serious charges, threatening to cause death, maiming, thereby committing an aggravated assault as well as a breach of probation.
On February 3rd, 2015, the justice of the peace denied bail. Justice of the Peace Hayden said this when addressing her concerns about the secondary grounds;
The last time you were on bail you had a surety, your father and you didn’t comply with that bail order from the moment you entered it. As soon as you walked out of the Justice of the Peace office after being granted bail, you did not go to reside with your father. You were supposed to do that so that he had the ability to supervise you and you started drinking alcohol pretty well right away.
The justice of the peace also was concerned with the apparent willingness of Kristen Cooper to commit to a program to address her alcohol abuse.
Today Kristen Cooper put forward a new plan with the same proposed surety, one same proposed surety as was before the court in February plus her new proposed surety, her mother.
The position of the defence is that there is a material change in circumstance that being, Kristen’s willingness to undergo treatment and she has filed a letter confirming that.
Now while it might be said that Kristen’s change in attitude in her present commitment to treatment in abstention is a material change in circumstance, I cannot conclude that it adequately addresses the concerns about the secondary grounds or even the primary grounds for that matter, given her record, to which I’ll refer a little later.
I am mindful of the direction in the Robinson case about the consideration and the impact of Gladue factors on the bail process and it is clear that Kristen has suffered many of the circumstances, bear with me one moment please, many of the circumstances that have been labelled systemic and that play a part and have played a part – large part in her being before the court and they are reviewed in the bail release plan. I won’t go through them but they are there and I’ve read them.
However the impact of the Gladue factors is lessened in the context of the seriousness of the charges that she faces. As well the plan that is proposed, notwithstanding that it is an enhancement of the plan that was initially proposed, the only real change is twofold. One, a new proposed surety who, to use the vernacular, has a proven track record of taking her duties as a surety very seriously and the willingness to undergo treatment.
But on the facts and on the record, the court and the community cannot be reasonably assured that Kristen Cooper will follow through with treatment and/or not commit further serious offences.
I refer back to Justice Hayden’s words about having made a promise to commit, made a promise to live with her father and not having gone there at all.
It is correct to say that there are two aspects to a bail plan. One is the ability of the sureties to ensure compliance and I don’t doubt that at all in this case, and I’ve already mentioned Kristen’s mother’s already proven ability to do that, but in the face that that’s just one – one side of it. The other side of course is the willingness of the accused person to comply with the orders and comply with a plan. In the face of the broken promises and the history of refusal or inability to follow direction, concerns about the secondary ground continue.
At this point in time I do need to refer to Kristen’s record. I won’t read it all but there are four convictions for fail to attend court. There are six breaches – six convictions for breach of a recognizance and/or undertaking, twelve breaches of probation, two obstruct police, in addition to the very serious violent offences for which she has been repeatedly convicted and has served sentences.
So despite Kristen’s stated willingness to conform to treatment, the new plan does not address reasonably the concerns that continue to exist under the secondary ground, and so bail is denied.
Is there anything else I need to address?
MR. GREGOR: No thank you.
MR. SCHAFFER: No Your Honour, thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks to counsel.
MR. SCHAFFER: You too Your Honour.
MATTER COMPLETED