Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000058 DATE: 2024 06 17 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING v. MATTHEW MCQUARRIE
EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Reasons for Sentence)
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN on June 17, 2024, at OWEN SOUND, Ontario
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 539 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE J.A. MORNEAU, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED AUGUST 20, 2021 AND SECTION 648(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE J.R. SPROAT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED JANUARY 9, 2023 AND SECTION 517(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE H. CHARYNA, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED MAY 7, 2020
APPEARANCES: J. Lesperance/M. Gardiner Counsel for the Crown T. Bryant Amicus Curiae S. Marcade Section 486.3 Counsel Matthew McQuarrie In Person
Table of Contents
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN CANNOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 539 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE J.A. MORNEAU, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED AUGUST 20, 2021 AND SECTION 648(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE J.R. SPROAT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED JANUARY 9, 2023 AND SECTION 517(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA BY ORDER OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE H. CHARYNA, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, DATED MAY 7, 2020
WITNESSES
| WITNESSES | Examination in-Chief | Cross-Examination | Re-Examination |
|---|---|---|---|
| None |
EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT NUMBER | ENTERED ON PAGE |
|---|---|
| None |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE 1
LEGEND [sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered: June 17, 2024 Transcript Completed: July 24, 2024 Ordering Party Notified:
Reasons for Sentence
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2024
...PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BUT NOT TRANSCRIBED – VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS, CROWN SUBMISSIONS, ACCUSED'S STATEMENT
CONLAN, J. (Orally):
I would like to give some brief oral reasons for the sentence that is being imposed on Mr. McQuarrie. I will begin these reasons with the sentence itself so that nobody is left in suspense, not Mr. McQuarrie and not any of the victim's family members and friends who are here. This Court will accept the joint submission that has been put forward on sentence. In my view, the joint submission is well within the range in terms of the period of parole ineligibility. And in my view, the sentence is a fit one. It is commensurate with the facts of the case and the degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the offender, Mr. McQuarrie.
Thus, the sentence imposed is as follows: life imprisonment. The period of parole ineligibility fixed at 15 years. The victim fine surcharge is waived. A section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order for life is imposed. A primary DNA order is made. A forfeiture order is made, and I have signed the forfeiture order as presented. And finally, there is an order under section 743.21 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. McQuarrie from having any contact or communication with certain persons while serving his sentence of imprisonment. Those persons are as follows. Tracy Sprung, Edwin Bradley Bauman, Ryder Elder-Sprung, David Elder, Tripp Elder, Jessica Bauman, Brenda Carter, Jennifer Carter, Steven Carter, Tracy Walker, Tanya Logan, Peter Morley, Darla Nugent, Joey Lippett, and Kevin Brown. That is the list of persons with whom Mr. McQuarrie is prohibited from having any contact or communication while serving his sentence of imprisonment.
As one of the authors of the victim impact statements noted, unfortunately, no sentence that this Court imposes will be able to undo what was done. Unfortunately, no sentence that this Court imposes will be able to turn back the clock and bring back young Emerson to live out the rest of his life with his friends and his family. This is a tragic case. This is a situation where a young man's life ended far too early. From what I can gather from the victim impact statements, a life that had much potential to it in the years going forward.
Tragically, Emerson will not be able to realize that potential and that is so terribly sad for Emerson, and so terribly devastating for his family and his friends who are left behind and are left with these feelings of resentment, anger, a sense of distrust for others in the community, a feeling of loneliness, of heartache for what could have been for Emerson. One can only imagine what it is like to lose a young family member, a young friend like Emerson, and especially when the loss is the result of being killed by another person.
I do not intend to dwell on all of the details of the facts of this case, partly because they are all set out in the agreed statement of facts that was filed and read into the record on the last day. And also, to be frank, in part because the facts are so miserable. They are so stark that I think it would be all the more depressing for the family and friends who have already suffered so much. But I have to say something about the facts because the facts are part of the equation in determining the period of parole ineligibility.
So I will simply say this, that based on the work of the forensic pathologist, based on the injuries that were noted to Emerson detailed in the agreed statement of facts, this was no doubt a vicious brutal killing. It was committed in circumstances that one usually only is forced to hear about on television. But this is real life. It was real life for Emerson on the day of, and it is real life for his family and his friends. It was an egregious example of the worst element of humankind, what happened to Emerson.
The facts, in terms of the spectrum of facts that can give rise to a conviction for second degree murder, the facts are aggravating in this case. But the facts have to be balanced against the circumstances of the offender and against the highly mitigating effect of a guilty plea, particularly in a case like this one. Mr. McQuarrie is not a first offender. I agree with Ms. Gardiner that his criminal history is unenviable. It spans a number of years between 2001 up until not long ago. It includes multiple convictions for violence. It is, in short, a bad criminal record.
Mr. McQuarrie has, however, entered a guilty plea. He has, however late it may be seen by family members and friends, he has admitted to having intentionally killed Emerson. That admission the law treats as acceptance, unqualified acceptance of responsibility by Mr. McQuarrie. That guilty plea, in and of itself, is a sign of Mr. McQuarrie's remorse for what he has done. That guilty plea has saved considerable resources. This was set for a very lengthy trial, multiple, multiple weeks. The guilty plea avoids having to endure what would have been a difficult, a highly emotional, and I suspect a rather turbulent trial. The guilty plea avoids all of that. The guilty plea avoids many witnesses having to come to Court to testify.
Any time a matter goes to trial, no matter how strong the Crown's case is, there is always some element of risk for the Crown. Always. Things happen at trial. Evidence sometimes comes out not quite the way one expects. Witnesses sometimes testify not quite the way anticipated. Things sometimes happen beyond the control of the Crown during a trial. And sometimes those events serve to derail the trial. Such a possibility in this case would not have served anyone's interests. It would not have served the interests, most importantly, of the memory of Emerson, and would not have served the interests of Emerson's family and friends. By pleading guilty, Mr. McQuarrie brought the case to a conclusion. Brought some, not peace, because I suspect that will never be found by family members and friends, but it brought finality to the matter. It brought some degree of closure to the matter. And so Mr. McQuarrie's guilty plea is treated by this Court as a significant mitigating factor on sentence.
The period of parole ineligibility must be fixed by this Court at between 10 and 25 years, but very, very, very few cases of second degree murder are accompanied by periods of parole ineligibility of anything close to 25 years. Many cases of second degree murder find themselves attached to periods of parole ineligibility in this range that has been suggested. And one must remember that in fixing the term of parole ineligibility this Court is not making any pronouncement on when Mr. McQuarrie would be released. The period of parole ineligibility deals only with eligibility for parole. Not, in fact, the granting of parole.
In my view, balancing the aggravating facts in this case against the highly mitigating effect of the guilty plea, the circumstances of Mr. McQuarrie, and everything that is before the Court, the joint submission that has been put forward is a fit one. It is a fit one for these facts and for this offender. It is not a perfect one. Unfortunately, sentencing is an imprecise exercise. It is more artful than scientific. It is not a mathematical calculation. It is a highly individualized exercise that must take into account not only the facts, but the circumstances of the offender. It must take into account the principles of sentencing. It must take into account both the factors that would tend to lengthen the sentence in this case and the factors that would tend to lessen the sentence in this case, in terms of the period of parole ineligibility. So for those reasons, the Court accepts the joint submission and I have already outlined what the sentence is.
I would like to close with two things — three things. The Court has already expressed its sincere gratitude to Mr. Bryant. The administration of justice is very grateful for having had the assistance of such an experienced lawyer in the role of amicus in this case. I would like to thank the Crown prosecutors in this matter for exemplifying what I think is a great deal of patience and responsibility throughout this matter. To Mr. McQuarrie, I hope that you put your time in prison to good use. I hope you remember that you are leaving some people behind as well. And that if you get a chance, if you get a chance down the road that you will make different choices. That is the goal.
And, more important, for the members of Emerson's family and the friends of Emerson, there is nothing that I can say that will change what happened to Emerson. I do hope that you will find the strength to carry on. I am sure that is what Emerson would have wanted. I hope that in the days, the months, and the years going forward, although you may not find true peace with what has happened, I hope that you find some comfort, relying on each other and that you are able to move forward.
So is there anything else?
MS. GARDINER: Your Honour, there may still be two indictments alive before the Court. The indictment upon which Mr. McQuarrie was sentenced. I'll maybe let you address that separately.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
MS. GARDINER: But the original indictment that had account of first degree murder on it should be marked withdrawn, please.
THE COURT: Yes. So, Madam Registrar...
MS. GARDINER: Well, I suppose it's not withdrawn.
THE COURT: ...when we were in Court last week there was a new indictment that was before the Court with the charge of second degree murder. So....
MS. GARDINER: So the other, given that the trial commenced, it, it perhaps is, is subject to a judicial stay at that point. It's, it's a little bit of a different circumstance, but the other indictment that the trial did commence on is still alive. And, clearly, the Crown no longer wishes to proceed on it.
THE COURT: Yes. So, Madam Registrar, the indictment that is before the Court with the first degree murder charge, do you have that indictment?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is all that I have.
THE COURT: And all of the endorsements that had been made on that indictment, did they remain on that indictment?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: And so the only endorsements that are on the current indictment with the charge of second degree murder are the endorsements that I made last week and today's?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. And one briefly from Justice Chozik last week as well.
THE COURT: Okay. That's right. Because Mr. McQuarrie appeared before Justice Chozik the day after I took the plea.
CLERK REGISTRAR: That, later that afternoon and the next day, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So what would you like me to say about that indictment?
MR. BRYANT: Oh, I think it should be stayed, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BRYANT: And with respect, Your Honour, I, I do not believe that you formally passed the sentence of life imprisonment. I think you....
THE COURT: Yes, I did.
MR. BRYANT: I, I didn't hear you say it.
THE COURT: I did at the start, yes.
MR. BRYANT: I'm sorry, but....
THE COURT: I will say it again. The sentence of the Court is life imprisonment. The period of parole ineligibility is fixed at 15 years. All of the corollary orders requested by the Crown are imposed. So the sentence is life imprisonment, a period of parole ineligibility of 15 years. The indictment with the charge of first degree murder is stayed. I see it there now. Thank you. The way you've done it is fine. Okay. Anything else?
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, sir.
MS. GARDINER: Not from the Crown. Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you.
COURT SERVICES OFFICER: Order, all rise.
...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED
Certificate of Transcript
FORM 3 ELECTRONIC Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act
I, Jennifer Baird-Norman, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. MCQUARRIE in the Superior Court of Justice held at 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 1011_crtrm#201_20240617_095529__30_CONLANC.dcr , which has been certified in Form 1.
July 24, 2024 _______________________________________ (Date) (Electronic Signature of Authorized Person)
2869957139________________ (Authorized Court Transcriptionist's Identification Number)
Ontario _________ , Canada. (Province of Signing)
*This certification does not apply to the Reasons for Sentence which was judicially edited.
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.