Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 21-RM19806-B Date: 2024/06/24 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King And: Justin Cassie-Berube

Counsel: Mike Boyce and Chantal Lefebvre, for the Crown Kate Irwin, for the Accused

Heard: Sentencing submissions - April 10, 2024

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Roger J.

Overview:

[1] The circumstances of this case are tragic. They include breaches of trust, frequent mistreatment and abuse of a five-year old little girl, Chloe, and Chloe’s untimely death.

[2] The offender, Justin Cassie-Berube, was in a relationship with Chloe’s mother, Ada Guan. The three lived together in Ottawa from February 2019 until Chloe’s passing on May 15, 2020.

[3] On March 1, 2024, following a three-week trial, this court found Mr. Cassie-Berube guilty of all counts: assault, assault causing bodily harm, failing to provide the necessities of life, criminal negligence, and manslaughter. The trial of the mother, Ada Guan, is scheduled for January 2025.

[4] Chloe’s short story is a shocking example of abuse. Cassie-Berube repeatedly assaulted Chloe. Moreover, during Chloe’s final days, despite Chloe’s apparent suffering and demise, he failed to seek medical attention to avoid legal jeopardy because he realized that health professionals would notice the bruises and injuries on Chloe and alert the authorities.

Circumstances of the offences:

[5] More details of the factual background can be found at R. v. Cassie-Berube, 2024 ONSC 1049.

[6] Chloe died from an untreated bladder rupture. The experts described her condition as acute uremia due to intraperitoneal rupture of the urinary bladder caused by blunt impact abdominal trauma to a full bladder. This is rare and painful, and the pain can trigger nausea and vomiting.

[7] If left untreated, the presence of urine in the abdominal cavity causes waste to accumulate in the victim’s blood. As uremia builds up, the condition gets progressively more severe. It eventually affects the central nervous system and can lead to general weakness, including fatigue, possibly some seizure, and ultimately loss of consciousness, coma, and death. Surgical repair is the only treatment. An expert testified that a bladder rupture is usually easily repaired by surgery.

[8] As to what caused Chloe’s bladder to rupture, the Crown attempted to show that the trauma was caused by Cassie-Berube punching Chloe in the abdomen. However, I was left with a reasonable doubt about this and did not make that finding. Cassie-Berube, who made many admissions against his interests, consistently denied this narrative. He maintained throughout that Chloe had fallen on her bed’s guardrail, which was supported by an expert as a possible cause of a bladder rupture. As well, I found the child’s mother, Ada Guan, not credible or reliable, and found her evidence about a punch by Cassie-Berube as the cause of the bladder rupture particularly unreliable. Consequently, I was left with a reasonable doubt about a punch having caused the bladder rupture.

[9] I found Cassie-Berube guilty of failing to provide the necessities of life to Chloe when in these circumstances he failed to seek medical attention for Chloe.

[10] I found Cassie-Berube guilty of manslaughter because he committed the unlawful act of failing to provide Chloe such necessities of life when she was in destitute or necessitous circumstances, and when this endangered her life, another unlawful act.

[11] I found that Cassie-Berube’s failure to carry out his legal duty to seek medical attention for Chloe showed wanton or reckless disregard for Chloe’s life. This was a marked and substantial departure from what a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances would have done and rendered him culpable of criminal negligence causing death.

[12] Cassie-Berube, one of Chloe’s guardians, failed to prioritize the child’s welfare over his and Ms. Guan’s legal jeopardy. He knew on May 9 that Chloe had injured her abdomen, knew that it was serious, and knew that Chloe was in significant pain and discomfort as her condition progressively worsened. He observed Chloe missing her birthday on May 10, too sick to get out of bed. He knew that there was something wrong with Chloe. On May 11, he was concerned that there could be serious injury to one of Chloe’s internal organs. On May 12, Chloe’s symptoms panicked and alarmed him, yet he lied to his mother and minimized Chloe’s symptoms when she inquired how Chloe was doing. He knew then that Chloe was not constipated; she had diarrhea, was soiling her bed, and was unable to get out of bed, but he lied to his mother to avoid detection for child abuse, which he knew would happen if they sought medical attention. On May 13, Chloe still had difficulty walking, still had a hard stomach, was still vomiting, still soiling her bed, and still sick all day. Chloe made grunting noises and was in pain, yet he lied again to his mother when he minimized Chloe’s symptoms and difficulties. On May 14, Chloe was in and out of consciousness. He knew that Chloe needed medical attention, but he persuaded her mother not to take Chloe for treatment.

[13] Chloe died on May 15, alone in a soiled bed. The expert evidence established that not seeking medical attention for Chloe caused her death or contributed significantly to it.

[14] Cassie-Berube realized early on that Chloe was at risk and that she needed medical attention. He was aware of the danger to the life or safety of Chloe and his failure to seek medical attention despite his knowledge of that risk or danger to the child can only be explained by his fear of detection for his child abusing conduct or fear of other legal jeopardy for the many visible bruises and injuries to Chloe.

[15] Such intentional and deliberate conduct is at the upper end of the scale of moral blameworthiness for such offences.

[16] I found the offender guilty of assault against Chloe for using soap on the child’s mouth to punish her when she used foul language, slapping Chloe on the mouth with the back of his hand a few times when she swore, repeatedly spanking her buttocks over her clothing and on her bare buttocks, and for grabbing her aggressively by the arm and wrist to scare her and bring her where he wanted her to go when she did not listen, including when he grabbed her violently to go to the washroom on her final birthday, causing her to skip steps. Also, for occasionally grabbing Chloe by the ankle and arm and throwing her on the couch out of anger, and for slapping her in the face twice. Some of these would have caused some of the bruises visible on the child and depicted at Exhibit 36. The offender admitted that the child’s mother told him not to do it again, and they argued about this. Ms. Guan testified that part of her concerns included an apprehension that “we have neighbours” who might hear Chloe’s screaming. The offender said that he tried not to do it again but admitted that he nonetheless did.

[17] I found Cassie-Berube guilty of assault causing bodily harm for slapping Chloe hard on the mouth with the back of his hand on at least two or three occasions which caused her gum to bleed and her lip to split open. Also, for hitting Chloe hard on the mouth tearing her frenulum (the skin under her lip) on May 10, 2020. Ms. Guan testified that these assaults hurt Chloe, that Chloe would cry. Cassie-Berube said that he hit Chloe on the mouth for something as simple as Chloe not doing her letters correctly. Ms. Guan sent him a text message on November 5, 2019, to complain that injuries to Chloe’s face and mouth were “suspicious” and required she “cover her face up just cause there’s marks on it”. This is something that occurred over months, and which scarred and hurt Chloe.

[18] I also found Cassie-Berube guilty of assault causing bodily harm for frequently hitting, striking, and grabbing Chloe by the arm and ankle and throwing her on the couch or bed. This caused objectively foreseeable bodily harm to Chloe. Chloe was hurt after these assaults. They caused bruises and others caused her to limp and have to be carried. Throwing Chloe on the couch or on her bed out of anger happened on several occasions. I found that the accused frequently threw, hit and struck Chloe, as the mother Ms. Guan described, and that this injured Chloe, including the serious injury to Chloe’s head visible at p. 75 of Exhibit 36 that likely occurred closer to May 2020. The healed rib fractures that were a small number of weeks in age, the scarring tissue in her abdomen and pancreas also of weeks in age, and the multiple serious bruises near her groin and lower back, described by Dr. Kepron and visible at Exhibit 36. I did not find Mr. Cassie-Berube guilty for the other injuries visible on Chloe because some were possibly common injuries for children that age, others pre-dated Cassie-Berube’s involvement, and others were not proven by the Crown.

Circumstances of the Offender:

[19] Mr. Cassie-Berube is 30 years old. He was 25-26 years old at the time of these offences (born in January 1994). He is single and living with his mother and brother since 2021. He has been receiving benefits through the Ontario Disability Support Program since 2020 for anxiety and depression.

[20] He does not have a criminal record; these are his first criminal offences.

[21] Mr. Cassie-Berube struck me as an immature young man who despite some affection for Chloe repeatedly could not control his emotions and frustrations, and frequently physically took his frustration out on Chloe. However, this is more serious than other instances of an immature or unskilled parent acting out of frustration, or impatience because the evidence illustrates a continuing pattern of child abuse despite warnings by the mother not to do so, and, from past injuries, Cassie-Berube had some appreciation that injuries may result.

[22] Failing to admit one’s actions is not an aggravating factor; however, it limits the extent of any mitigation for acceptance of responsibility and remorse. Here, Cassie-Berube has shown conflicting behaviour, including some remorse at the time of Chloe’s passing, during his police interviews and trial testimony, but overall, he has shown difficulty accepting the monstrosity of what he did to Chloe. This is apparent in his police statements and at trial where he often started by denying any assault on Chloe and painted an unrealistic rosy picture yet, with questioning, often ended up admitting most of the Crown’s allegations. As well, this is recently also apparent in his mental health assessment where he initially denies allegations and later admits to similar allegations. For example, during his mental health assessment he said that he was not responsible for Chloe’s injuries and never beat her up; however, later admitted that he put soap in her mouth and caused bruising to Chloe’s face, despite having admitted worse allegations during his police interview and at trial.

[23] This apparent confusion about the extent of his role shows a lack of insight into the extent of his responsibility for this tragedy and a lack of true remorse. This almost nullifies the mitigating effect of this factor and distinguishes the facts of this case from some of the decisions relied upon by Cassie-Berube’s lawyer, see for example: R. v. Oben, 2013 ONSC 1515; R. v. J.F., 2017 ONSC 2987; R. v. M.F. and T.T., 2023 BCPC 139; and R. v. Piper, 2023 ONCJ 566, where remorse was a much clearer mitigating factor.

[24] Mr. Cassie-Berube has a close relationship with his mother and older brother, but reports having a difficult childhood, including an abusive stepfather. He said to the psychiatrist who conducted his mental health assessment, that his stepfather had anger issues and used to “smack him with a belt”. He reported that his stepfather also used to taunt and make fun of him, and apparently attempted to commit suicide in front of the children multiple times. Cassie-Berube nonetheless still occasionally has contact with his former stepfather. He further reported that he was sexually assaulted at the age of 25 when his then girlfriend’s mother forced herself upon him sexually.

[25] Cassie-Berube reported during his mental health assessment that he was frequently bullied at school. He attempted to attend Algonquin College when he was about 21 but left after about six months due to his “insecurities and not being able to trust people”. He worked during the summer with his stepfather installing pools for about six summers and would be unemployed during the other seasons. He also worked at a farm for a few months when he was 18, and again for about five months just prior to the events subject of these offences. He worked at Harvey’s for about four months when he was about 24 and stopped working because of his “insecurities” as he did not trust his girlfriend.

[26] These insecurities were still present when he was living with Ms. Guan. He was extremely jealous and attempted to manipulate Ms. Guan by threatening suicide. As an example, he and Ms. Guan followed a rule that they would constantly speak on the phone with one another when one of them left and was outside of their apartment without the other.

[27] Mr. Cassie-Berube reported that he has self-induced concussions from hitting his head on walls whenever he feels sad, starting at the age of 17. He attended the hospital occasionally for difficulties related to his chronic cannabis use.

[28] He reported during his mental health assessment having ADHD and being prescribed medication for this. He reported about 20 suicide attempts, starting at the age of 16, and instances of self-harm. He attended hospital and has been assessed for suicidal ideation. He also reported that he was told that he had separation anxiety, bipolar disorder, as well as borderline-multiple personality disorder.

[29] He reported being depressed, anxious, and having multiple panic attacks since 2021. He believes that he struggles with social anxiety, and separation anxiety. He admits to having long-standing anger problems. He reports a history of alcohol and cannabis abuse.

[30] His mental health assessment also notes that he has post-traumatic stress disorder, cannabis use disorder, alcohol use disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type and unspecified learning disability, and borderline personality disorder. He is at an increased risk of suicide attempt.

[31] According to the mental health assessment, Cassie-Berube would benefit from being transferred to the Regional Treatment Centre (“RTC”) where he could receive support for his mental health and suicidal ideation. This report also recommends that Cassie-Berube engage in psychotherapy with a focus on dialectical behavioural therapy as this might assist individuals such as him with borderline personality disorder. This therapy is apparently available at the RTC. The mental health assessment also recommends that when Cassie-Berube is released into the community, he would benefit from consultations with a worker from the Canadian Mental Health Association to help him assess the availability of similar psychotherapy resources.

[32] The mental health assessment notes that if its recommendations are not pursued, Cassie-Berube remains a risk to himself with self harming behaviour and multiple suicidal gestures. It notes as well that with increasing distress, Cassie-Berube has shown a propensity to lash out at others, including at Chloe. It further notes that Cassie-Berube has always envisioned himself having a family, thus quickly entering relationships. As such, it notes that “without proper work done on his self-esteem and insecurities in relationships as well as a resurgence of his alcohol use, he would be at increased risk of lashing out and causing further harm to any children that may come from that relationship.” This is concerning and shows the importance of ongoing therapy and treatment in this case.

[33] Mr. Cassie-Berube was given the opportunity to address the court, and as he is entitled chose not to do so.

Impact on the Victim:

[34] Chloe’s life was unnecessarily cut short by Cassie-Berube’s criminal conduct. In addition, she was repeatedly abused and mistreated by Cassie-Berube, as evidence by the injuries and bruises that he inflicted, outlined above.

[35] It is difficult and heart-wrenching to assess the harm that Chloe endured over months and particularly during her final week. No child should endure any of what Chloe suffered.

[36] Chloe was repeatedly slapped, hit, dragged, and thrown. She sustained multiple injuries outlined above and in my earlier decision. The abuse started months before her passing and continued until she passed. The autopsy evidence is shocking testimony of the unimaginable harm that Chloe suffered.

[37] Chloe’s bladder ruptured on May 9, 2020. Chloe was complaining and holding her tummy. According to the medical evidence, Chloe would have been in significant pain and discomfort. Her condition progressively deteriorated until she died on May 15, 2020. She was sick, in bed, with frequent bouts of vomiting and diarrhea. Her hands and feet turned purple. She was in pain and made grunting noises. Her condition continued to deteriorate and by May 14 she was in and out of consciousness. Chloe died alone in a soiled bed. She must have wondered why this was happening and suffered great distress that nothing was done. The photos of her bed and beddings, in which Chloe spent her final days and final hours, are upsetting with most everything covered in excrement and vomit which had been left there for some time. The harm is great and unimaginable.

[38] The paternal grandmother filed a Victim Impact Statement. She reported shock at the news of Chloe’s passing and regrets for not knowing Chloe except when Chloe was a baby. She also reported what she described as a devastating impact on her son, Chloe’s father, apparently burdened with guilt and regrets.

Position of the Crown and Defence:

[39] Applying the rule against multiple convictions, the Crown and defence agree that the two counts of failing to provide the necessities of life be conditionally stayed. As between criminal negligence causing death and manslaughter, the two offences are interchangeable and both parties agree that the count of criminal negligence causing death should be conditionally stayed.

[40] As a result, a conviction will be registered for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault. The other convictions are stayed: Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, R. v. J.F., 2008 SCC 60, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 215, at para. 13, and R. v. Layugan, 2016 ONSC 2077, at paras. 54-55.

[41] The maximum penalty for these offences is imprisonment for life for manslaughter, ten years for assault causing bodily harm, and five years for assault.

[42] The Crown seeks a term of incarceration of 14 years for manslaughter, two years consecutive for assault causing bodily harm, and one year concurrent for assault. It also seeks ancillary orders, including a DNA order under s. 487.051(1), a weapons prohibition under s. 109 for life, and an order under s. 743.21 prohibiting communication.

[43] The defence agrees that a term of incarceration is required but argues that 10 to 12 years less applicable credits for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions would be appropriate. It agrees with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.

[44] The offender’s bail was revoked when he was convicted on March 1, 2024, and he has been detained since. Both parties agree that his pre-sentence time in detention adds up to 121 days to June 24, 2024, and both parties agree that a 1.5:1 credit would be appropriate, or 182 days to date. As for a credit for bail conditions, the defence seeks an eight-month credit for the time on bail from June 16, 2021 to March 1, 2024 (at about 25%), which is opposed by the Crown based on insufficient evidence supporting such a credit.

Analysis:

[45] Imposing a just sentence is a delicate balancing exercise that is fact specific. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and it must be similar to sentences imposed on offenders who committed similar offences in similar circumstances.

[46] The fundamental purpose of sentencing and the general principles to be applied are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. These include to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a 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 the 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 or harm done to victims or to the community; and

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[47] When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of 18 years or the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances, each is applicable to Mr. Cassie-Berube, the court gives primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct, ensuring that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: ss. 718.01, 718.04 and 718.1 of the Criminal Code. As well, the principle of totality requires a court “that sentences an offender to consecutive sentences to ensure that the total sentence does not exceed the offender’s overall culpability”: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 157.

[48] A court that imposes a sentence must also take into consideration the following principles outlined in s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code:

a) 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,

ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

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[.]

[49] The totality of the sentence must be fair and reasonable, and for young offenders with no criminal record, such as Mr. Cassie-Berube, a court should show restraint and impose the less onerous sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances. Proportionality is an indispensable requisite of sentencing.

[50] Here, it is aggravating that Chloe was five years old at the time of the offences and that at that age, she was a particularly young victim who was entirely dependent on Mr. Cassie-Berube and her mother. It is also aggravating that Cassie-Berube was in a position of trust in relation to Chloe. It is clear from the evidence that Cassie-Berube considered himself to be Chloe’s father. Over and above Chloe’s young age, she was a vulnerable victim on account of her poor and deteriorating condition over the final days of her life. Furthermore, the abuse took place in Chloe’s home, a place where she ought to have been able to count on safety and protection from harm, and a place where detection is difficult, hence the importance of discouraging such conduct.

[51] The length of time over which Cassie-Berube failed to seek medical attention for Chloe of about four days is also aggravating considering his ongoing observations and concerns over Chloe’s pain and deteriorating condition, as is the fact that Cassie-Berube persuaded the child’s mother, Ms. Guan, not to take Chloe for medical care when he knew that Chloe needed it.

[52] With regards more specifically to the convictions for assault and assault causing bodily harm, it is aggravating that the physical abuse was repeated and persistent over a period of months, and that some of the injuries were extensive and serious. It is also aggravating that two of the assaults occurred after May 8, 2020, when Chloe was already very sick.

[53] The mitigating factors are the absence of a criminal record, the offender’s young age, and the family support available to Mr. Cassie-Berube from his mother and brother.

[54] I note that Cassie-Berube was not Chloe’s sole caregiver, and decisions relating to Chloe also involved Ms. Guan. This does not mitigate the harm which he visited on Chloe; however, Cassie-Berube also showed some remorse. The mitigating effect of his remorse is, however, very limited considering his demonstrated lack of insight into the extent of his responsibility, which rather points to a lack of true remorse. Cassie-Berube had a difficult childhood, has mental health issues, suicidal ideation, and substance and alcohol abuse issues, and May 2020, with COVID-19 restrictions, was a difficult time.

[55] The principles from Friesen suggest that sentences must increase for all child abuse offences. Friesen provides that the unique status of children militates for their protection from harm, as does the fact that all child abuse exploits a child’s vulnerability and their weaker position. It provides that sentences for offences against children must fully reflect the profound harm that child abuse causes, the moral blameworthiness where the child is particularly vulnerable, and the breach of trust where the offence is committed by a parent in the safety of the child’s home.

[56] The Supreme Court tells us in Friesen that sentences for offences against children must increase, and that courts should be cautious when relying on dated precedents that fail to reflect society’s current awareness of the gravity of offences against children. Even in non-sexual assault cases, courts must acknowledge this harm and “appropriately assess the gravity of any offence against children when determining a proportionate sentence”: R. v. MAC, 2023 ABCA 234, at paras. 49-50.

[57] The offender relies on R. v. J.F., 2017 ONSC 2987 to argue the appropriateness of a ten-year sentence. However, that case was decided before Friesen, involved a guilty plea where the Crown sought a ten-year sentence, and related to a matter where the sentencing judge did not know why the offender did not seek assistance for the child. Here, we know why Cassie-Berube did not seek medical assistance for Chloe, and his failure to seek medical attention to avoid legal jeopardy for his child abusing conduct shows a high level of moral blameworthiness. This indicates that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Cassie-Berube should exceed ten years, even if the offender in J.F. was not youthful.

[58] M.F. and T.T. involved worse facts, but the sentence was imposed following joint submissions asking for a ten-year sentence, and involved, as a mitigating factor, an offender with a clearer indication of remorse. As we know, joint submissions do not have the same precedential value because they should be respected by the sentencing judge unless the suggested sentence is manifestly unfit. Similarly, Piper imposed a nine-year sentence, but again this involved a guilty plea and, as a mitigating factor, a clearer indication of remorse.

[59] R. v. Jha, 2015 ONSC 4656 involved similar and possibly worse facts as a fatal blow was proven, and a ten-year sentence was imposed. However, this was before Friesen.

[60] Similarly, I find that some of the other older decisions brought to my attention by the offender’s lawyer are of limited precedential value considering the principles stated in Friesen, as it is not clear whether these appropriately reflect the harm to the children considering the principles outlined in Friesen.

[61] In R. v. Henderson (1 March 2022), Oshawa, 15421A/20 (Ont. S.C.), an unreported decision, the court imposed a global sentence of 12 years for similar offences, and in R. v. Alexander, 2011 ONSC 6839, the court imposed a sentence of 11 years on a youthful first offending mother.

[62] In R. v. O’Dea, 2021 ONSC 6543, the court sentenced the offender to 15 years for the manslaughter of his 21 months old daughter, who slowly died from starvation while in his care. The circumstances of that case are horrible, involving an older offender who showed no remorse, and who also had some anxiety and trust issues. The moral blameworthiness of Mr. O’Dea was higher, involving a more obvious and longer period of decline for the child. However, unlike what Chloe endured, the most unfortunate little girl in O’Dea did not suffer months of repeated assaults, some causing bodily harm, prior to her death. Unlike what Chloe repeatedly endured at the hand of Mr. Cassie-Berube, the evidence in O’Dea was that until six weeks before her death Mr. O’Dea properly cared for his daughter Victoria. Both their circumstances are shocking, involving a father, or one in that position, not seeking medical attention while his daughter obviously suffers and deteriorates. When everything is considered, I find O’Dea to be an informative precedent.

[63] Mr. Cassie-Berube, not unlike the circumstances in O’Dea, is at the upper end of the range of moral blameworthiness for manslaughter. He deprived Chloe of medical care to protect himself and the mother from legal jeopardy. There is no evidence that his mental health issues are connected to the circumstances of these offences, only conjecture. Mr. Cassie-Berube exerted some control over Ms. Guan and persuaded her not to seek medical attention for Chloe when he knew that Chloe needed it. He repeatedly lied to his mother to avoid having to take Chloe for medical care to avoid detection of his abuse of the child. He did this over about four days despite Chloe’s obvious pain and difficulties. He admitted that he knew early on that Chloe was seriously ill. On May 11, he googled “body diagrams” because he thought Chloe might have a serious injury to an internal organ. Knowing that she might have a serious injury and needed medical attention, he consciously withheld it, persuaded Ms. Guan not to seek it, and repeatedly lied to his mother to prevent her from intervening and getting help for Chloe. Chloe’s condition continued to deteriorate for another four days leading to her death.

[64] This level of subjective knowledge and cold calculation is at the high end of the spectrum for manslaughter, even for manslaughter based on failing to provide the necessaries of life: R. v. Alexander, 2014 ONCA 22, at para. 41, and R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 48. It demonstrates a high degree of responsibility and moral blameworthiness.

[65] It is aggravating that Mr. Cassie-Berube abused a position of trust, abused a five-year-old child, and that he abused Chloe during her final week of life when she was particularly vulnerable.

[66] As indicated, the harm endured by Chloe was severe, if not unimaginable.

[67] Mr. Cassie-Berube showed remorse on occasions, but as noted in the mental health assessment he also “minimises or defers blame regarding the circumstances of his stepdaughter’s death”, such that this is a mitigating factor with very limited impact. However, he is a youthful first offender who was not Chloe’s only caregiver, which distinguishes this case from O’Dea, and points to a global sentence that is less than 15 years.

[68] The paramount principles of sentences in such cases are denunciation and general deterrence. As well, considering Friesen, a strong response is required to these serious offences of violence against a vulnerable child. However, Mr. Cassie-Berube is relatively young and a first offender, such that the principle of restraint must be considered. This will be Mr. Cassie-Berube’s first period of incarceration, and he has some prospect for rehabilitation assuming he engages in the psychotherapy recommended in the mental health assessment.

[69] After reviewing the too many cases sadly involving similar horrible circumstances, I find that a fit sentence for these offences and for this offender is a global term of imprisonment of 14 years.

[70] A sentence of 12 years for manslaughter sends a strong message of denunciation and deterrence for the callous conduct of Mr. Cassie-Berube. It reflects society’s awareness of the gravity and harm caused by offences against children, yet shows restraint considering Cassie-Berube’s age and the fact that he is a first offender.

[71] The sentences suggested by the Crown of two years consecutive for assault causing bodily harm and one year concurrent for assault are reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the offences and to the degree of responsibility of Mr. Cassie-Berube. They align with the sentences imposed in similar cases. See for example: R. v. MAC, 2023 ABCA 234; R. v. Delorme, 2021 ONSC 7965; R. v. J.M., 2019 ONSC 375; R. v. Monckton, aff’d in 2017 ONCA 450; R. v. R.P., 2023 ONCJ 299; and R. v. McInroy, 2014 ONSC 2843.

[72] A consecutive sentence is required for the conviction of assault causing bodily harm as these events are separate from those of manslaughter. On the other hand, a concurrent sentence for assault is appropriate as these events are closely linked to those of assault causing bodily harm: Friesen, at para. 155.

[73] I agree with the jointly suggested pre-sentence credit of 182 days for the time the offender spent in custody to date (182 days is the total amount which already incorporates the available multiplier of 1.5:1).

[74] However, with regards to a credit for the time the accused has spent subject to bail conditions, I disagree with the offender’s submissions that a credit is required. The bail conditions were not stringent as Cassie-Berube was ordered to continue to reside with his mother and brother. Although he was essentially under house arrest, he was not confined to this residence and could leave in certain circumstances, including to attend work or school, or in the presence of one of his sureties. I have been provided with no evidence of the impact of these conditions on Cassie-Berube, and I am not aware whether he sought to vary his conditions. This is different from circumstances where such a credit could be granted: R. v. H.E., 2015 ONCA 531, at paras. 52-55.

[75] The ancillary orders sought be the Crown are not opposed and will be ordered.

[76] As well, the offender’s request that the applicable victim surcharges be waived was not opposed and, considering Cassie-Berube’s financial circumstances, is granted.

Conclusion:

[77] The indictment shall show a conviction for Mr. Cassie-Berube for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault. The other convictions are stayed.

[78] Mr. Cassie-Berube is sentenced to a global sentence of 14 years, less a credit for pre-sentence custody of 182 days or six months, such that his global sentence net of his pre-sentence custody credit is 13.5 years:

a) For manslaughter: 12 years of imprisonment less the applicable six-month credit for his pre-sentence custody, for a total of 11.5 years of imprisonment;

b) For assault causing bodily harm: two years of imprisonment consecutive; and

c) For assault: One year of imprisonment concurrent.

[79] In addition to the terms of imprisonment, the following ancillary orders are made:

a) a DNA order, under s. 487.051 (1);

b) a weapons prohibition for life order, under s. 109; and

c) an order prohibiting communication during Cassie-Berube’s terms of imprisonment with Wesley Branch or any known members of his immediate family, under s. 743.21.

[80] Finally, a copy of the mental health assessment of March 20, 2024 shall be provided to the carceral authorities as it provides helpful suggestions. I recommend its review by the carceral authorities to determine whether Mr. Cassie-Berube could be transferred to the Regional Treatment Centre where he apparently could benefit from receiving support for his mental health and suicidal ideation. This report also recommends that Cassie-Berube engage in psychotherapy with a focus on dialectical behavioural therapy as this might assist him with borderline personality disorder, which is apparently available at the RTC. The mental health assessment also recommends that when Cassie-Berube is released into the community, he would benefit from consultations with a worker from the Canadian Mental Health Association to help him assess the availability of similar psychotherapy resources, and this could be incorporated into his other terms of eventual release.

P. E. Roger J.

Released: June 24, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: 21-RM19806-B DATE: 2024/06/24 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – Justin Cassie-Berube Accused REASONS FOR SENTENCE P. E. Roger J. Released: June 24, 2024