Court File and Parties

CITATION: Her Majesty The Queen vs. Daniel Lalonde, 2017 ONSC 1882

COURT FILE NO.: 2016-18

DATE: 2017/04/12

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

– and –

DANIEL LALONDE Defendant

COUNSEL:

J. Martel, counsel for the Crown

G. Chayko, counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: March 7, March 8, March 20, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Charbonneau, J.

[1] Mr. Daniel Lalonde is charged with first degree murder on the person of Jacqueline Rouleau. He asks this court to release him pending trial. To be successful, he has the onus of establishing on a balance of probability that his detention is not justified under any of the three justifications set out in paragraphs a, b or c of subsection 515 (10) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

[2] The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom clearly states that all accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and are entitled to a reasonable bail. They are entitled to be released pending trial unless just cause exists for their detention. Parliament has set out the three circumstances that justifies denial of bail in section 515 (10) a, b and c of the Criminal Code.

Background facts

[3] Mr. Lalonde is 62 years old. All of his life he has maintained his residence in the County of Prescott in the province of Ontario except for a brief period in the early 1980’s when he lived and worked in Montreal and when serving time in jail. He has close ties to the Alfred Township area where almost all of his family relatives still reside.

[4] Mr. Lalonde has a long criminal record. Between 1971 and 1994 he was convicted of dozens of crimes including crimes of violence, and was continually in and out of jail. He frequently was recommitted shortly after released because of parole violations.

[5] His last convictions occurred in early 1991. At that time he was convicted of two counts of robbery, two counts of disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, trafficking in a narcotic, unlawfully being at large, and break and enter and theft for which he received a total of 5 years and 9 months.

[6] Mr. Lalonde met his wife in 1995 and married her in 1999. They have one child, Sophie, who is 32 years old and lives in Alfred. He has 2 brothers and 4 sisters in the Alfred area.

[7] Mr. Lalonde only worked odd jobs between 1971 and 1991. He earned basically minimum wage for most of those jobs although he admits selling drugs to supplement his income. A few years after coming out of jail for the last time he was accepted for a disability pension both by O.D.S.P. and the C.P.P. He still receives $700.00 per month from C.P.P.

[8] Jacqueline Rouleau met Mr. Lalonde sometime in 2015. She was growing marihuana. He provided her with financial assistance and they joined together in a joint venture of growing and selling marihuana.

[9] On September 22, 2016 as a result of a 911 call, police attended Ms. Rouleau’s residence at 1191 Concession 5, Alfred-Plantagenet Township where they found Jacqueline Rouleau’s lifeless body. She had been shot 4 times with a 45 caliber revolver. The fatal short was to her head.

The evidence

[10] The Crown introduced the evidence through detective Fedele, the lead investigator in this matter.

[11] The police investigation revealed that the victim and the accused had been involved in a joint grow-up marihuana operation for several years. However prior to September 22, 2016, their relationship had deteriorated. Mr. Lalonde was claiming that the victim owed him money. At one point he threatened her with a revolver by showing her a revolver he had in his possession. As a result, the victim gave the accused a camper as partial compensation.

[12] Mistral Lalonde, the nephew of the accused, was also involved in the grow-up operation. A dispute arose between the accused and Mistral about money Mistral owed to the accused. The dispute became physical and the accused threatened to stab Mistral.

[13] The accused had installed 4 cameras showing both the inside and outside of his residence. One video recording introduced at the hearing shows a physical altercation between the accused and Mistral. Mistral told the police that the accused had threatened to kill him. The accused told Mistral he did not want Mistral to attend the victim’s residence. There were several text messages exchanged between the victim and Mistral in July, August and September confirming that the relation between the victim and the accused were strained. The victim indicating that “she did not have a good feeling about the accused”, the accused had been robbing her and bullying her and she was avoiding the accused because she was afraid of him.

[14] Approximately 1 week before the murder of the victim, the accused showed up at the victim’s mother’s house and showed the victim that he had a gun.

[15] On September 22, 2016, one of the cameras at the accused’s residence shows him leaving his residence at 12:59. The accused is wearing a red jacket, jeans, gloves, a navy blue shirt and sneakers. The gloves appear to be latex gloves.

[16] Mistral Lalonde told the investigator that on September 22, 2016, he attended with the victim at her residence. They intended to repair the outdoor greenhouses which had been damaged earlier during a police drug raid. They had plastic tarp which they intended to use to cover the frame of the structure. At approximately, 2 p.m., they noticed the accused’s white Toyota Highlander driving up the driveway to the victim’s house. Mistral did not want to be seen by the accused and decided to hide at the tree line behind the house. From that vantage point he saw that Mr. Lalonde was alone. He saw and heard the accused confront the victim. The accused was yelling and telling her to give him the cell phone. The accused shot a round in the air and demanded that the victim go inside the house. Mistral heard the victim crying hysterically and went into the house. He then heard the victim yell “no Dan please no Dan”. He then heard 4 gun shots.

[17] Mistral was petrified and ran down to County Road 15 where he flagged down a motorist and made the 911 call using the motorist’s cell phone.

[18] The investigation revealed that on September 22, 2016 the accused was at the Lynn St-Denis pharmacy at 15:30 and at the Canadian Tire in Hawkesbury at 18:40. The camera at the Canadian Tire shows that he was wearing jeans, dark sneakers. He is wearing a different T-shirt, he has no red jacket and no gloves. The accused attended the Mark’s Warehouse store and bought new shoes. Another pair of sneakers was found in his car. A footprint found at the scene on one of the plastic tarp was examined and compared to the sneakers found in the car. The sneakers could not be excluded as having made that footprint.

[19] A bag of latex gloves, purchased several days before and similar to the one he was seen wearing on the video was found in his car. The red jacket was not recovered when his car and residence were searched.

[20] A number of witnesses have declared that in the weeks and months preceding the homicide, the accused personality had changed. He was paranoid; he was severely abusing alcohol and drugs and had what is described as “weird conduct”. He would dig holes in order to hide money and sometimes he forgot where he had hidden it.

[21] His wife left him in March 2016 at least in part because of his abuse of alcohol and drugs.

[22] Although the accused was not convicted for any crimes after his release from jail in 1995, police intelligence reports refer to him in 27 different incidents. He had been suspected as being involved with drug cultivation and trafficking for many years. He was only charged once in 2016 and the charges were withdrawn by the Crown on the basis of an illegal search.

[23] There is evidence that the accused practiced target shooting at one of his properties. Slugs found in a tree at that residence were compared with the slugs found at the murder and they came from the same firearm used to murder the victim. The murder weapon was a 45 caliber revolver and witnesses have described the accused’s revolver as being similar to a picture of a 45 caliber revolver shown to them. The revolver of the accused was not recovered.

[24] Gunshot residue was found on the jeans worn by the accused when he was arrested at 20:23 that same evening.

[25] When he was brought for his first court appearance the next day the accused became very ill. He was foaming at the mouth. He was transported by ambulance to the Hawkesbury General Hospital where he was treated for a drug overdose. A review of the video recordings of the courthouse cell block shows him ingesting something before he became ill.

[26] The accused testified. He confirmed his long criminal record and the fact he had spent more time in jail than out of jail during the years 1971 to 1995. However he attributed his problem to alcohol and drug abuse. He states that when he was released in 1995 he had had the benefit of a therapy which allowed him to quit completely the use of alcohol and drugs. He attended A&A meetings regularly and he was living a normal life. He met his wife in 1995 and married her in 1999.

[27] Although he qualified for a disability pension from the C.P.P. and at some time from O.D.S.P. he continued working to renovate houses. Him and his wife won $25,000.00 at the Loto-Québec “roue de fortune” which they used to buy 4 lots which they resold at a profit of $85,000.00. They bought houses which he renovated were either rented or sold. His main residence was destroyed by fire and he was paid $600,000.00 by his insurance company.

The position of the defence

[28] The defence has made arrangement for the accused to be electronically monitored on a constant basis by the Recovery Science Corporation (Recovery).

[29] Mr. Tan, an officer of Recovery testified and explained the monitoring that Recovery can provide in a judicial interim release situation. The monitoring is accomplished by means of both a radio-frequency system and an ankle bracelet installed on the person being monitored. The GPS system allows the establishing of zones within which the subject is required to remain and zones which the subject is prohibited from entering. Any breaches results in an alert which is communicated within minutes to the responsible police department and if required directly to specific members of that detachment. The police are provided with internet site where they may themselves follow the exact whereabouts of the accused in real time.

[30] This monitoring system has been accepted by the Superior Court of Justice and other Superior Courts in Canada when releasing accused on bail including where the accused was charged with murder.

[31] The Recovery system is more fully explained in a document entitled: Compliance Monitoring Programs filed by the defence.

[32] The accused proposes that Recovery provide their monitoring system on the basis of any protocol required by the court including an inclusion zone restricted to his residence subject only to specific exceptions like those allowed in a full house arrest order and also including any specific exclusion zones the court may deem advisable.

[33] Mr. Chayko submits that the proposed release plan should be found to remove any justification requiring detention pending trial under both the secondary and tertiary ground.

The position of the Crown

[34] The Crown submits that Mr. Lalonde should be detained on both the secondary and the tertiary ground.

[35] The secondary ground justifies detention where it is “necessary for the protection or safety of the public (…) having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused (…) will commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice”.

[36] Ms. Martel submits that given the accused long criminal record which includes numerous violations of parole and the circumstances of the commission of the murder, the proposed plan should not be sufficient to convince the court that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused will re-offend or interfere with the administration of justice. This is particular so because the proposed monitoring plan will not prevent the accused from violating his release conditions before the police have time to re-act to any alert received from Recovery. At best, the monitoring will provide evidence of the violation and by then the damage will have been done.

[37] Moreover, the Crown submits that to release the accused will seriously affect the confidence of the public in the administration of justice given all the circumstances. Therefore the tertiary ground justifies the detention of the accused.

Analysis

[38] I have concluded that the detention of the accused is not justified on the secondary ground.

[39] Although the proposed plan is not full proof in the sense that it ensures that the accused could never violate the bail conditions, it is sufficient to meet the “substantial likelihood” threshold.

[40] Mr. Tan was candid with the court that the program of Recovery does not guarantee adherence to the bail conditions but rather provides substantial deterrence. I am of the view that on a balance of probability the accused has established that the proposed plan sufficiently minimizes the risk for the protection or safety of the public. The detention of the accused is not justified on the secondary ground.

[41] I have, however, concluded that Mr. Lalonde’s detention is justified on the tertiary ground.

[42] On the one hand all four of the enumerated circumstances in paragraph 515(10) (c) point towards the necessity to detain the accused in order to maintain the confidence in the administration of justice. At this stage the strength of the Crown’s case appears very strong. There is the evidence from a witness who was present when the victim was murdered and a package of very compelling circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. It is not my task here to weigh the evidence. It is possible that the evidence of Mistral Lalonde will be weakened substantially by cross-examination or other defence evidence. This has yet to be seen. However from my particular vantage point I have to consider the evidence of Mistral as probative. The relative strength of the circumstantial evidence is not likely to change.

[43] I need not say much more about the other enumerated circumstances namely the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used and the substantial sentence the accused is facing. All favour detention.

[44] The evidence also discloses other circumstances which are very relevant to the tertiary ground:

1. The very long and very serious criminal record of the accused. Although the accused has not been convicted of an offence since his release from jail in 1995 it is clear that he had resumed his criminal activity for some time. His present substantial wealth is not credibly commensurate with doing odd jobs, and winning $25,000.00 at the Loto. Video recordings show himself involved in drug trafficking with different individuals.

2. He came under the police radar 27 times during that period. He was charged once but the charges were withdrawn apparently as a result of a search in contravention of the Charter.

3. He carried a concealed revolver while being involved in drug trafficking shortly before the alleged murder. That revolver was not recovered.

4. The murder was apparently committed for the enforcement of drug debts and carried out execution style.

5. The accused asked his siblings to act as surety and they replied they did not want to “police him”. This raises real issues of trust in him and in the persons closest to him.

[45] In these circumstances, the confidence of the public in the administration of justice would not be maintained if the accused was released. By the public I mean a well-informed member of the public who recognizes the importance and justification of the Canadian Bail Regime, which emphasizes release, who is knowledgeable about the Charter Rights provided to all accused person and who is aware of all the circumstances of this case.

[46] The accused’s request for bail is denied and Mr. Lalonde is ordered detained pending trial.

The Honourable Justice M.Z. Charbonneau

Released: April 12, 2017

CITATION: Her Majesty The Queen vs. Daniel Lalonde, 2017 ONSC 1882

COURT FILE NO.: 2016-18

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

– and –

DANIEL LALONDE Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Charbonneau, J.

Released: April 12, 2017