Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-037 DATE: 2017-01-09

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Her Majesty The Queen D. Allan, for the Crown

- and -

Katelyn Skead, Accused D. Gunn, for the Accused

HEARD: January 9, 2017 at Kenora, Ontario BEFORE: Mr. Justice F. B. Fitzpatrick

Reasons for Sentence

[1] During the early morning of November 26th, 2013, Katelyn Skead entered the home of James Redsky on the Shoal Lake 40 first nation. Mr. Redsky was in his 80’s. Ms. Skead was 23. It was her intention to steal his car. She had consumed a large amount of drugs and alcohol that evening.

[2] Mr. Redsky awoke, struggled with Ms. Skead and pinned her to the floor. She said she gave up. He let her up. She then stabbed him in the heart. A number of times. He died in his house. Ms. Skead fled. She was apprehended about 20 hours later. Ultimately she confessed to this crime.

[3] She has entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of second degree murder, but guilty to the charge of manslaughter. On the facts admitted and accepted by the defence I have found her guilty of the charge of manslaughter.

[4] On this sentencing hearing the Court has received a Gladue Report, a Pre-Sentence Report and a report of a psychiatrist who examined Ms. Skead in the spring of 2016. All of these reports comment on the aboriginal background and circumstances of Ms. Skead as required by section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and discussed in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and revisited recently by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433. In the reports filed, there was a discussion of Ms. Skead’s background as well as useful information concerning Shoal Lake First Nation, the aboriginal community where Ms. Skead was raised.

[5] These reports were quite thorough in discussing Ms. Skead’s background and the very difficult life she has endured, as indeed have all the residents of her First Nation.

[6] Ms. Skead is now 26 years old. She has three children herself. She had what can be best described as a horrific childhood. However, she comes before the Court as a first time offender.

[7] This crime has had a significant impact on Mr. Redsky’s family. The family has experience a profound sense of shock, grief and disbelief concerning his death. An important and respected elder has been lost to this very small community. The family is having a very difficult time understanding why. They must live with the results of this senseless death for the rest of their lives.

[8] Ms. Skead has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter pursuant to section 236 of the Code. As no firearm was involved there is no minimum sentence for this offence. The maximum punishment for this offence is life imprisonment.

[9] The parties have made a joint submission as to penalty. They submit a sentence of 13 years incarceration with credit for time served of two years calculated at the rate of 1 to 1.5 is a fit, just and appropriate sentence in these circumstances. I agree, and accept this joint submission. I do so for the following reasons.

[10] The case law in regards to manslaughter matters varies widely as to sentence. Sentencing is always fact specific. No doubt this was a crime of violence, and involved a brutal application of force by a young healthy person to an elderly man.

[11] This requires a significant penitentiary sentence to both denounce and deter the conduct of Ms. Skead.

[12] Ms. Skead has shown remorse. She has entered a plea. She has made a very real and significant commitment to change her life. Those changes have already began to bear fruit. She was raised in an environment where the legacy of colonialism and the effects of the residential school experience has led to dysfunction, poverty and a lack of hope. She is presently banned from her community. Everybody in her community knows what she did. She will live with this for the rest of her life.

[13] Ms. Skead did have a significant problem with substance abuse. She has made significant progress in becoming clean and sober.

[14] In this matter, in my view, there a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. Ms. Skead’s upbringing, her struggles with substance abuse, issues with her domestic situation and her children, her acknowledgement of her guilt and her expression of remorse to the Court and to Mr. Redsky’s family represents mitigating factors. Aggravating this situation is the violent nature by which Mr. Redsky died and the significant negative impact the commission of this offence has had on Mr. Redsky’s family.

[15] In this case, I am mindful of the sentencing principles contained in sections 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code. Also I have considered the native background of Ms. Skead and the information contained in the Pre-Sentence Report and the Gladue Report concerning conditions Ms. Skead has experienced growing up in Shoal Lake. I have taken into account the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in R v. Gladue and R. v. Ipeelee. In particular, the comments of the Court regarding the necessity that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[16] Also I have taken judicial notice of the various factors articulated in Ipeelee which were set out at paragraph 60 of that case and includes such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal offenders.

[17] In this matter, I am persuaded that joint submission as to sentence falls within an appropriate range for the offence at issue. I am encouraged by the positive steps taken by Ms. Skead. She has acknowledged she must pay a debt for her actions. A respected aboriginal elder is dead. A family devastated.

[18] Taking all of this into account, in my view, a fit and just sentence is a period of thirteen years’ incarceration, less time served of two years at an enhanced rate of 1 to 1.5 for a total credit of 3 years. There will be a DNA order pursuant to section 487.05(1). Further Ms. Skead shall be prohibited from possessing or owning weapons for life pursuant to the provisions of section 109 of the Criminal Code. However there shall be an exception in this order for those occasions (once Ms. Skead has finished the period of the warrant of committal) in the event Ms. Skead requires firearms or weapons for the purpose of exercising her constitutional or treaty rights to hunt of fish.

The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick Released: January 09, 2017