Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 16-M7888 DATE: 20190708 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – JORDEN LAROCQUE-LAPLANTE Accused
Counsel: Mark Moors and Robert Thomson, for the Crown Mark Ertel and Michelle O’Doherty, for the Accused
HEARD: June 28, 2019
SENTENCING DECISION Aitken J.
Issue
[1] On February 15, 2019, a jury found Jorden Larocque-Laplante guilty of second degree murder. Under s. 745(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C. 46, I am obliged to sentence Mr. Larocque-Laplante to imprisonment for life. The only issue which I now must decide is the length of time Mr. Larocque-Laplante must serve prior to being eligible to apply for parole. The minimum period is 10 years and the maximum period is 25 years. In making this decision, I must take into account the factors listed in s. 745.4 of the Code; namely, the character of Mr. Larocque-Laplante, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the recommendation regarding parole eligibility made by the jurors following their determination of Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s guilt.
Jurisprudence
[2] In R. v. Shropshire, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227, the Supreme Court provided guidance as to how s. 745.4 of the Code [s. 744 at the time] should be applied.
[3] First, the determination under s. 745.4 of the Code is a very fact-sensitive process, with the factors to be considered being set out in that section.
[4] Second, in exercising discretion under s. 745.4 of the Code, the judge must be informed by general sentencing principles found in other sections in the Code.
[5] Third, “as a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for 10 years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that, according to the criteria enumerated in [s. 745.4], the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability to be released into the general public assessed. To this end, an extension of the period of parole ineligibility would not be ‘unusual’, although it may well be that, in the median number of cases, a period of 10 years might still be awarded.” (Shropshire, at para. 27)
Character of Mr. Larocque-Laplante
Personal Information
[6] At the time of the offence, Mr. Larocque-Laplante was 20 years old and was living at home with his mother in Ottawa’s Debra-Dynes public housing neighbourhood, where he had lived since birth. Mr. Larocque-Laplante described his childhood as being good, with his physical and emotional needs being met. Although his parents separated when he was two years old, he continued to visit his father regularly until he was 10 years old. Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s parents and siblings have supported him throughout this trial. Mr. Larocque-Laplante has always been close to his older sister, Roxanne. Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s parents and sister described him as being a happy, fun-loving child and teenager with a big heart – someone who got along with everyone and was willing to help anyone in need.
[7] Mr. Larocque-Laplante has been in a relationship with Joccelyn Cardenas for a number of years. She lives, works, and studies in Arizona. The couple met through gaming activities. Their relationship evolved, and they ended up spending weeks and, on one occasion, three months together in Ottawa or Arizona. Ms. Cardenas described Mr. Larocque-Laplante as being loving, respectful, caring, honest, kind, ambitious, humble, funny, genuine, and generous.
[8] Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s family and Ms. Cardenas advised the probation officer that Mr. Larocque-Laplante does not have anger issues. He is a well-adjusted young man. All of them are shocked that he killed Mr. Al-Tutunji. Mr. Larocque-Laplante, himself, expressed shock about what he had done. All claimed that the killing would never have happened if Mr. Larocque-Laplante had not been intoxicated at the time.
[9] Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s family and Ms. Cardenas described him as loving automobiles and having the ambition of becoming an auto mechanic and eventually owning his own automobile business.
[10] Mr. Larocque-Laplante has a grade 11 education and acknowledged that he never liked going to school. When testifying at trial, he spoke of having struggled at school.
[11] Mr. Larocque-Laplante has a very limited employment history, having had only one job, namely delivering auto parts. This job lasted for approximately one year. Mr. Larocque-Laplante was fired for having problems with his vehicle. Aside from this income source, Mr. Larocque-Laplante reported that he would buy and sell bicycles and scrap metal to make money and, otherwise, was supported by his mother.
[12] Mr. Larocque-Laplante told the probation officer that he had drunk to excess on the night of Mr. Al-Tutunji’s killing and that there were other instances when he became intoxicated, one resulting in his being convicted of uttering a threat. Despite these events, Mr. Larocque-Laplante denied that he had any addiction or other issues with regard to his alcohol use. Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s parents also reported that he had no drug or alcohol problems and that his social drinking with his friends did not raise any concerns. This reporting was different from what Mr. Larocque-Laplante had stated at a bail hearing in January 2017. At that time, he testified that he might have a drinking problem and that his mother had been concerned about his drinking.
[13] Mr. Larocque-Laplante advised the probation officer that he had a good group of friends, most of whom were pro-social and engaged in viable careers or educational pursuits. Although his peers consume alcohol and marijuana, they are not involved in hard drugs. Sergeant Christopher O’Brien of the Ottawa Police Service reported that many of Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s associates are known to the police for being “at odds with the law”. Some examples are provided in the section below dealing with Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s other encounters with the police.
Involvement with the Law
[14] Prior to the commission of this offence, Mr. Larocque-Laplante had had some contact with the law. On June 17, 2016, Mr. Larocque-Laplante attended a Beer Store with a friend. The friend took two cases of beer and left the store without paying. When a Beer Store employee gave chase, Mr. Larocque-Laplante fled on foot. His friend punched the employee in the face and brandished a utility knife. The friend eventually pled guilty to assault with a weapon. Although Mr. Larocque-Laplante was initially charged, those charges were withdrawn.
[15] On the same day, Mr. Larocque-Laplante and another friend were involved in a fight with a woman. The friend struck the woman with a closed fist and a beer bottle, causing the victim extensive injuries. Mr. Larocque-Laplante and his friend held up beer bottles and said: “who’s next?” to those witnessing the fight. Mr. Larocque-Laplante pled guilty to uttering a threat. There was no evidence that he had struck the woman or had used a beer bottle to harm the woman. At the sentencing hearing, defence counsel advised that Mr. Larocque-Laplante had been drinking to excess on that date. He was given a conditional discharge and probation for 12 months.
[16] I take four things from the events of June 17, 2016. First, Mr. Larocque-Laplante committed a criminal offence prior to his killing of Mr. Al-Tutunji on December 11, 2016, namely uttering a threat. This is an aggravating factor. Second, a further aggravating factor is that, at the time of Mr. Al-Tutunji’s killing, Mr. Larocque-Laplante was on bail and subject to the conditions of a curfew and an order to abstain from the consumption of alcohol – both of which he ignored on December 10 and 11, 2016. Third, in 2016, Mr. Larocque-Laplante had a problem with alcohol in the sense that, when he drank to excess, his behaviour became anti-social. Fourth, at that time, Mr. Larocque-Laplante hung out with some individuals who engaged in violent criminal behaviour. The events of June 17, 2016 and December 11, 2016 certainly cast doubt on the assertion of Mr. Larocque-Laplante and his parents that he did not have a drinking problem at that time and that his friends and associates were generally law-abiding, pro-social individuals. They also cast doubt on the assertion of Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s family members that he was someone who got along with everyone and was always willing to help out others.
[17] Since Mr. Larocque-Laplante has been incarcerated at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, he has been involved in five incidents that have resulted in misconduct reports on his file. On February 2, 2017, he covered his cell window and refused to remove the covering. On August 1, 2017, he received a misconduct for bringing contraband into the institution. On July 27, 2018, he was noted as joining in on another fight already in progress. On September 15, 2018, he and another inmate were involved in a fight against three other inmates. On February 17, 2019, he and another inmate were involved in a physical altercation. The paucity of information about these noted misconducts means that it would be inappropriate for me to assign any weight to them as aggravating factors; however, the existence of five misconduct reports over less than two years prevents Mr. Larocque-Laplante from arguing that exemplary conduct on his part while in the Detention Centre is a mitigating factor reflecting well on his character.
Mitigating Factors
[18] In terms of mitigating factors, there are two that are significant:
- Mr. Larocque-Laplante was young when he committed the offence.
- Both at trial, and during his interview with the probation officer, Mr. Larocque-Laplante expressed remorse for having killed Mr. Al-Tutunji, and he accepted responsibility for his actions. I consider his expressions of remorse to be genuine.
Nature of the Offence
[19] Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s killing of Mr. Al-Tutunji was brutal. At a time when Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb had disengaged from the fight and were not posing any threat to Mr. Larocque-Laplante, he pulled out of his pocket a prohibited weapon, namely a spring-loaded knife, and lunged at the unsuspecting Mr. Al-Tutunji, stabbing him forcefully in the chest. Mr. Al-Tutunji collapsed onto his knees. Mr. Larocque-Laplante then ran after Mr. Abdelmottleb, and the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from this behaviour was that he intended to stab Mr. Abdelmottleb as well, if he were able to catch him. When Mr. Larocque-Laplante was unable to catch Mr. Abdelmottleb, he returned to Mr. Al-Tutunji, who was kneeling and defenseless, and stabbed him two more times. Mr. Al-Tutunji fell to the ground, at which time Mr. Larocque-Laplante stabbed him several more times. Mr. Abdelmottleb tried to push Mr. Larocque-Laplante off Mr. Al-Tutunji as Mr. Larocque-Laplante was repeatedly stabbing him. Mr. Larocque-Laplante then chased Mr. Abdelmottleb again but never caught up to him.
[20] Mr. Al-Tutunji received nine stab wounds, including one to his chest and five to his torso on his back. He also received two further incised wounds. Mr. Al-Tutunji died from the combination of stab wounds to his torso. All of the evidence supports the conclusion that the stabbing was done with significant force.
[21] The nature of the offence involves a number of aggravating factors:
- Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb were unarmed and had withdrawn from the fight at the time Mr. Larocque-Laplante initially stabbed Mr. Al-Tutunji.
- Despite it being clear that Mr. Al-Tutunji was gravely injured and could not defend himself in any fashion, Mr. Larocque-Laplante returned to him and stabbed him multiple times as he was on his knees and was then lying on the ground.
- The weapon Mr. Larocque-Laplante used to kill Mr. Al-Tutunji was a prohibited weapon, and there was no legitimate reason for Mr. Larocque-Laplante to be carrying such a weapon on the night of the killing. His explanation at trial as to why he owned such a weapon was not, in the least, credible.
Circumstances Surrounding the Commission of the Offence
[22] On the evening of December 10, 2016, Mr. Larocque-Laplante was drinking with some buddies. After being dropped off near his home in the early hours of December 11, 2016, he walked over to a neighbourhood McDonald’s, where he met up with his sister and another female friend. In the McDonald’s at the time were two university students, Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb, who were waiting for their orders. Both men were of Middle-Eastern or Arabic heritage. At a booth in the restaurant were four other university students who, to some, may have appeared to be of Middle-Eastern or Arabic heritage.
[23] When Mr. Larocque-Laplante arrived at the restaurant, he was intoxicated and presented with a confrontational demeanour. As he walked to and from the washroom in front of the booth of students, he was making loud sounds and muttering to himself, saying some Middle-Eastern or Arabic names. Mr. Larocque-Laplante was acting in an offensive fashion to the point that his sister felt the need to apologize to the four students in the booth for how he was acting. When Mr. Larocque-Laplante returned from the washroom and joined his sister and her friend, he was agitated to the point that the two women felt the need to restrain him.
[24] By this time, Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb had their food and drinks and were making their way toward the exit. To get there, they had to pass Mr. Larocque-Laplante. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, at this time, Mr. Larocque-Laplante was saying things of an offensive nature regarding Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb that he wanted the men to hear. As he was going out the door, Mr. Al-Tutunji told Mr. Larocque-Laplante “to shut the fuck up” in a dismissive fashion. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Al-Tutunji did so not to invite or provoke any physical fight with Mr. Larocque-Laplante, but solely for the purpose of registering out loud that it was not acceptable for Mr. Larocque-Laplante to speak in such a disrespectful fashion to him and his friend. Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb had gone to McDonald’s to get some food before heading home for the night. They were minding their own business and were not seeking a confrontation with anyone. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reason Mr. Larocque-Laplante harassed them was because of his perception of their national, ethnic, racial, or religious heritage. Mr. Larocque-Laplante called after the two men as they left the restaurant, saying something akin to “what did you say you fucking bitch … just come back”. The two women were trying to hold Mr. Larocque-Laplante back at this point, but he pushed them away, and stormed out the door after Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb.
[25] Mr. Larocque-Laplante verbally confronted Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb in an aggressive manner, getting into their faces, feinting a hit, and seemingly trying to intimidate the two friends. Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb listened to what he was saying but remained calm. They displayed no signs of aggression. By this time, the two women had come out of McDonald’s and appeared to be trying to keep Mr. Larocque-Laplante in check. Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s sister held on to his sleeve to restrain him. At one point, after Mr. Larocque-Laplante had pushed Mr. Abdelmottleb, Mr. Al-Tutunji put his food and beverage on the ground and stood his ground in front of Mr. Larocque-Laplante as if to signal that, if Mr. Larocque-Laplante harmed his friend, Mr. Larocque-Laplante would have to deal with him too. The women intervened in an obvious effort to ensure no fight broke out.
[26] Mr. Al-Tutunji picked up his food and beverage and he and Mr. Abdelmottleb turned away and headed for home. Mr. Larocque-Laplante was very agitated and was held back by the female friend from following the two men across the parking lot. After a matter of seconds, he pushed beyond that restraint and followed the two men.
[27] Mr. Larocque-Laplante taunted the two men saying, “fight me”. He followed them in the parking lot, asking where they were going and telling them in vulgar terms to get back there. Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb stopped and turned to face him. Mr. Larocque-Laplante got into their faces again. He called them names. He threatened them, saying that he had a weapon but that he would not show it to them because he knew there were surveillance cameras and he would get into trouble. All of a sudden, Mr. Larocque-Laplante took a swing at Mr. Al-Tutunji, hitting him in the face. The food that the two men had purchased went flying. Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb retaliated with punches. A brawl broke out.
[28] The fight involved punching, pulling, pushing, kneeing, and grappling, with all three men throwing punches. It lasted a few minutes, at most. No one was causing anyone else any serious damage. At some point, as Mr. Larocque-Laplante was backing up, he fell to the ground. He was on the ground for only a few seconds, during which time one or both of Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb leveled a few punches and kicks at Mr. Larocque-Laplante. Again, none of these blows caused any significant injury or damage to Mr. Larocque-Laplante. The punches and kicks stopped as soon as Mr. Larocque-Laplante stopped fighting back.
[29] Within seconds of Mr. Larocque-Laplante ending up on the ground, the two friends disengaged from the fight. It was at this point that Mr. Larocque-Laplante retrieved the US Army knife he had in his pocket, stood up, and immediately stabbed Mr. Al-Tutunji, as described above. After Mr. Larocque-Laplante had stabbed Mr. Al-Tutunji multiple times, he picked up his jacket, which had come off during the brawl, and fled the scene.
[30] Mr. Larocque-Laplante walked home and had his mother take him to the closest hospital to be treated for a stab wound behind one of his knees which, I find, was self-inflicted during his brutal stabbing of Mr. Al-Tutunji.
[31] The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence involve a number of aggravating factors:
- Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s aggression toward Mr. Al-Tutunji, Mr. Abdelmottleb, and the four university students sitting in the booth, was motivated by his dislike of people who had whatever national, ethnic, racial, or religious heritage he perceived these men had. I cannot be more specific about the reason for the antipathy Mr. Larocque-Laplante felt toward the men, and whether that antipathy related to their being Muslim, Middle-Eastern, Arabic, or dark-skinned, or whether it was because he perceived them as being foreign students or immigrants. But I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s perception of the national, ethnic, racial, or religious heritage of these strangers that sparked his instant aggression toward them.
- Mr. Larocque-Laplante was itching for a fight with Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb, initially because of his antipathy to them, and then because Mr. Al-Tutunji had the audacity to stand up to his taunts and his bullying. Mr. Larocque-Laplante would not accept Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb’s calmness and restraint. He was determined to push them beyond their limit. When verbal assaults did not work, he started the physical fight by throwing the first punch. Even after Mr. Al-Tutunji and Mr. Abdelmottleb withdrew from the fight when Mr. Larocque-Laplante was on the ground, Mr. Larocque-Laplante kept the fight going by pulling the knife and attacking Mr. Al-Tutunji.
- Mr. Larocque-Laplante ignored all of the efforts of his sister and her friend to restrain him and talk reason to him. They tried hard both inside McDonald’s and then in the parking lot, but to no avail. Mr. Larocque-Laplante cast them aside and carried on with his aggressive behaviour.
- After stabbing Mr. Al-Tutunji repeatedly, Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s aggression was not sated, and he tried to catch Mr. Abdelmottleb with the goal of injuring him.
- Mr. Larocque-Laplante fled the scene after he had stabbed Mr. Al-Tutunji, showing a complete disregard for whether Mr. Al-Tutunji’s life could be saved.
- When arrested at the hospital, Mr. Larocque-Laplante initially told the police that he had been jumped – something very far from the truth.
Jury’s Recommendations
[32] Three jurors recommended a parole ineligibility period of 10 years, six recommended 15 years, and three recommended 20 years.
Impact on the Family
[33] The death of Abdullah Al-Tutunji has had a devastating impact on his family. In her Victim Impact Statement delivered with such grace and courage, Abdullah’s younger sister, Tuleen, spoke of the void in her life and in the lives of her parents following the death of Abdullah. She described her brother as being kind, reserved, intelligent, giving, and generous. She spoke of how he brightened the lives of those around him with his sparkling eyes and infectious laughter. She spoke of his dreams, ambitions, and future – all destroyed in an instant. She spoke of the daily pain she and her parents feel – not only due to the loss of their beloved brother and son – but also due to the vicious and senseless fashion in which he died.
[34] The circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr. Al-Tutunji and the nature of the murder have had an impact beyond his immediate family and friends. No one who has had to work on this case – whether police officers, Crown counsel, Defence counsel, the court staff, or the jurors – could have anything other than a profound sense of shock and sadness as to what happened. The reality that a perfect stranger can take a dislike to you due to bias and prejudice and attack you as you do something as mundane and harmless as go into a McDonald’s for a late night snack creates fear for oneself and one’s loved ones. But furthermore, as Canadians, we pride ourselves with opening our doors to immigrants and refugees who are fleeing sectarian violence in their own countries. We consider our country relatively safe. We want our country to be free of national, ethnic, racial, or religious prejudice and, at an institutional level, we strive to make that goal a reality. The Al-Tutunji family came to Canada with the belief that their children would be safer here than in their home country, and that their children would have greater opportunities in a peaceful, multi-cultural, society like Canada. Instead, their son was murdered in a random act of senseless violence tied somehow to the killer’s perception of Mr. Al-Tutunji’s heritage.
[35] The impact on the Al-Tutunji family and others within our community is an important aggravating factor.
Disposition
[36] If it were not for Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s youth and his expression of remorse, I would have set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years to reflect the level of moral culpability I assign to Mr. Larocque-Laplante in the circumstances of this case. There are significant aggravating factors which call out for a strong denunciatory and deterrent sentence. However, Mr. Larocque-Laplante’s youth, his expressions of remorse, and the absence of any significant criminal record mean that the possibility of his rehabilitation must be considered and the principle of restraint in sentencing must be remembered. Taking all of the above factors into account, I conclude that what would be fit in the circumstances of this case is a period of parole ineligibility of 13 years.
[37] Mr. Larocque-Laplante, I sentence you to imprisonment for life. You will not be eligible to apply for parole until you have served 13 years of your sentence.
[38] In addition, there shall be a DNA order under s. 487.051(1) of the Code, and a weapons prohibition order for life under s. 109 of the Code.
[39] Finally, under s. 743.21 of the Code, there shall be an order prohibiting Mr. Larocque-Laplante from communicating, directly or indirectly, with the following individuals during the custodial period of his sentence:
- Ahmed Abdelmottleb,
- Armand Kocharyan,
- Marko Surla,
- Lazar Surla, and
- Hrishi Mukherjee.