IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Mr. Mazerolle was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault. He is now before the court for sentencing. The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years less the time that Mr. Mazerolle has been in custody. Counsel for Mr. Mazerolle argues that a fit sentence is a sentence in the range of 5 years less the time that he has served in custody. The court has had the benefit of fitness assessments, a psychological assessment, an NCRMD assessment, a pre-sentence report, case authorities and submissions of counsel. The task for this Court is to identify a fit and appropriate sentence.

[2]           Mr. Moore was walking west on West Broadway when Mr. Mazerolle approached him from behind him and stabbed him on the top of his head. Mr. Moore brought his hand up to protect himself and he was stabbed in the hand. Mr. Moore managed to get away from Mr. Mazerolle who left travelling east on West Broadway.

[3]           After attacking Mr. Moore, Mr. Mazerolle made his way to Quebec Street and when walking north he rushed Mr. Allardice from behind. Fortunately, Mr. Allardice heard Mr. Mazerolle approaching, and despite trying to move out of the way he was stabbed once in the head and he also received abrasion to his neck.

[4]           After attacking Mr. Allardice, Mr. Mazerolle made his way to Main Street and he began walking north. While walking north a bus pulled to the curb and passengers began exiting. One of the passengers was E.K. who happened to exit at the moment that Mr. Mazerolle was walking by. Who then stepped in behind E.K. and stabbed him in the back of his neck.

[5]           Of note is, Mr. Mazerolle was reading from a bible immediately before the assaults. A more fulsome description of the offences is contained in R. v. Mazerolle, 2019 BCPC 16.

[6]           Mr. Moore’s victim impact statement was filed and he addressed the court. I am satisfied that the assault had a profound physical and emotional impact on him. He suffered significant gashes to his head and extensive injuries to his hand. The injuries to his head were closed with staples. He has had surgery to his hand and he has participated in extensive physical therapy. Mr. Moore has not worked since the assault and he describes the assault as having destroyed everything that he has worked for. Mr. Moore reports that he can no longer provide for his family, that he is afraid to go outside, that he suffers from anxiety and an inability to sleep.

[7]           Mr. Alderdice did not prepare a victim impact statement. The writer of the pre-sentence report spoke with him and he reported that he was not suffering from any trauma or physical issues. Despite this, he is more cautious when in public. As for his injuries, Mr. Alderdice suffered a two centimetre gash to the back of his skull and a minor abrasion to his neck.

[8]           E.K. did not prepare a victim impact statement. As for his injuries, E.K suffered two stab wounds to the base of his skull near the top of his neck. His C1 vertebrae was fractured and his vertebral artery was dissected. He suffered a thrombotic occlusion and a muscular hematoma. E.K. spent seven days in hospital and he suffered a stroke six days after his discharge.

[9]           Mr. Mazerolle is 36 years old and single. He was born in New Brunswick and raised by his mother and stepfather. Mr. Mazerolle completed high school and he has some post-secondary education. He spent three years working on the oil rigs but quit as he found that the nature of the work was difficult and not to his liking. Thereafter, he sporadically worked for temporary labour companies. He has been homeless for years and he reports he has few possessions.

[10]        As for substance use, Mr. Mazerolle regularly drank alcohol, and although he would drink to excess he does not feel that he has an alcohol problem. During his assessments, Mr. Mazerolle denied using anything other than marijuana, however, he disclosed to the writer of the pre-sentence report that he used hard drugs for a number of months in 2016 but then stopped.

[11]        Mr. Mazerolle’s criminal record commences in 1999 and his last conviction was in 2006. He has two convictions for assault with a weapon and two convictions for assaulting a police officer. He also has convictions for obstruction, drug offences, threatening, theft, breach of probation, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and causing a disturbance. Mr. Mazerolle’s criminal record is dated, he has convictions for violence, and his longest custodial sentence was 60 days. Lastly, at the time of the current offences Mr. Mazerolle was bound by a recognizance prohibiting him from possessing weapons.

[12]        Mr. Mazerolle has a puzzling psychiatric history. Mr. Mazerolle’s presentation before the courts has resulted in several fitness assessments. These assessments are dated; March 22, 2017, August 21, 2017, January 1, 2018, and March 6, 2019

[13]        A general theme from the psychiatric assessments is that Mr. Mazerolle has no clear mental health diagnosis and he has had previous certifications pursuant to the Mental Health Act.

[14]        Mr. Mazerolle was assessed shortly after the offences and it was observed that he was inappropriately smiling, laughing and mumbling. It was also noted that he was putting tissue in his ears, and that there were times when he would partially close his eyes and look down when talking to people. He also expressed that he did not like the lights on and he thought they were killing him.

[15]        In the March 22, 2017 assessment, Dr. Robertson summarized at page 7:

[16]        In the January 2018, assessment Dr. Robertson reported on another doctor’s charting of Mr. Mazerolle and noted at page 7:

[17]        As part of his summary Dr. Robertson concluded at page 12:

[18]        Finally, I note Mr. Mazerolle has been in custody since his arrest in March 2017. He has taken little programming and he does not appear to have a release plan.

[19]        The fundamental purpose of sentencing is in s. 718 of the Criminal Code:

[20]        Section 718.1 of the Code states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is:

[21]        Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sentence. It is where the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the offence balanced against the degree of moral blameworthiness: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at paras. 36-37.

[22]        In R. v. Carte, 2017 BCSC 2421, Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten commented at para. 65 on achieving a proportionate sentence:

[23]        Section 718.2 of the Code contains additional principles. The relevant portions read:

[24]        The violent and unprovoked nature of Mr. Mazerolle’s offences requires a sentence that denounces his conduct and deters himself and others. Through the sentence imposed this Court must voice society’s abhorrence at Mr. Mazerolle’s conduct. This Court must also ensure that the sentence imposed operates to remind those that are prepared to engage in random violence that the courts will respond with a significant sanction. Further, and due to Mr. Mazerolle’s dated record for violence, any sentence imposed must operate to deter him.

[25]        Mr. Mazerolle’s offences were serious. I note the maximum penalty for aggravated assault is imprisonment for 14 years. The method of attack, the risk posed, and the harm caused underscore the seriousness of the Mr. Mazerolle’s conduct. Specifically, he attacked his victims with a large butcher knife and his method of attack was from behind and directed at the head and neck of his victims. Clearly, the areas targeted were vulnerable and created a risk of significant injury. As for the harm caused, Mr Moore suffered permanent injuries requiring surgery and E.K. has experienced significant medical challenges related to his recovery. Finally, and not surprisingly, all of the victims have suffered varying degrees of trauma.

[26]        As for the level of Mr. Mazerolle’s responsibility, I make two contradictory observations. First, Mr. Mazerolle’s attacks appear to be focussed and coordinated which suggests a heightened degree of responsibility. However, the bizarre circumstances and the psychiatric conclusions suggests a reduced level of responsibility owing to an undiagnosed mental illness.

[27]        As for the law, it is trite law that an offender’s moral culpability is diminished in circumstances where their mental illness contributed to the offence: R. v. Badhesa, 2019 BCCA 70 at paras. 42 and 44.

[28]        In this case, and appreciating that there has been no formal diagnosis, I find that Mr. Mazerolle’s (undiagnosed) mental illness contributed to his offences. In this regard, I observe his history of contact with mental health professionals, his absence from treatment around the time of the offences, the comments contained in the assessments and the bizarre circumstances of the offences. Specifically, they were random, unprovoked and at all times he was either reading from or possessing a bible.

[29]        In considering an appropriate sentence, I find the following to be aggravating. The offences were unprovoked and Mr. Mazerolle used a knife against unarmed individuals. All of the attacks were committed from behind, thus depriving the victims of the opportunity to defend themselves. Further, all of the attacks were random and without warning. Mr. Mazerolle has a criminal record which includes some dated convictions for violence and at the time of the offences, he was bound by a court order not to possess weapons.

[30]        Sadly, little can be said in terms of mitigation.

[31]        The range of sentence for aggravated assault is imprisonment for a period between 16 months and six years: R. v. Nguyen, 2016 BCCA 408, at para. 47, R. v. Craig, 2005 BCCA 484 at para.10.

[32]        The application of this range is variable to the context of the assault. In R. v. Johnson, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2924(C.A.), Madam Justice Prowse observed at para. 10:

[33]        In considering the range for the offence of aggravated assault, I am mindful that ranges are guidelines and there may be circumstances justifying the imposition of a sentence that is above or below the range. In this regard the court in R. v. Kim, 2010 BCCA 590, observed at paras. 39-40:

[34]        In support of their position the Crown relies on: R. v. Kim, 2010 BCCA 590, R. v. Craig, 2005 BCCA 484, R. v. Wallin, 2003 BCSC 809, R. v. Larose, 2013 BCCA 450, R. v. Berry, 2014 BCCA 7.

[35]        In Kim, the offender’s appeal of an effective sentence of 13 years for four aggravated assaults was dismissed. The circumstances were; on four separate days the offender slashed homeless people with a box cutter. The assaults were random and unprovoked. The sentencing judge imposed four consecutive seven year sentences, however, reduced the sentence on the basis of the totality principle and imposed a sentence of 13 years. In dismissing the appeal the court noted that the sentence was proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s responsibility.

[36]        In Wallin, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years after pleading guilty to aggravated assault wherein he attacked a random jogger, and choked her causing a permanent brain injury which rendered her to a vegetative state. When the police responded to the event, the offender originally passed himself off as a witness, and later he confessed to his involvement. The offender was 25, he did not have a criminal record, he had a record of involvement with psychiatrists but no history of psychotic events. Upon imposing sentence the sentencing judge noted that the protection of the public was a strong factor given that the offender has refused psychiatric help.

[37]        In Craig, the Crown successfully appealed a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year followed by probation for two years that was imposed on an offender who was convicted of aggravated assault after he stabbed his former romantic partner. The stabbing was unprovoked and without warning. In allowing the appeal, the court observed that the sentence imposed did not adequately deter and denounce the actions of the offender, specifically, a deliberate attempt to maim and disfigure. The Court allowed the appeal and imposed a three year sentence. The offender was in his early 50s, he had a long employment history and a dated and unrelated criminal record.

[38]        In Larose, the offender’s appeal of concurrent seven year terms of imprisonment was dismissed. The circumstances of the offence were; during a street altercation the offender slashed and stabbed him three times one victim. He then slashed the neck of a second victim. The offender was 22 at the time of sentencing, he had a difficult upbringing, he abused drugs, he had a criminal record including four assault convictions and at the time of the offence he had a court condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons.

[39]        In Berry, the offender’s appeal of a total sentence of 14 years for aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, break and enter, theft and mischief was dismissed. The offender forced entry into a home and while inside he punched and struck two of the occupants. He stabbed them with a sharp object and they suffered injuries to their arms, face and head. The offender was 29 at the time of sentencing, he had completed an apprenticeship program, he had a lengthy criminal record with entries for assault and threats, he had a drug addiction and he had mental health issues. On appeal the offender argued the judge erred in overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence without addressing the prospects for rehabilitation.

[40]        Counsel for Mr. Mazerolle relies on the following authorities: R. v. Haly 2012 ONSC 2302, R. v.Spruit, 2005 BCPC 307 (CanLII), 2005 BCPC 0307, R. v.Thompson, 2017 BCPC 336.

[41]        In Haly, the offender received an effective sentence of four and a half years for aggravated assault. The offender committed an unprovoked knife attack resulting in a number of soft tissue injuries. The offender was 28, he did not have a criminal record, he had the support of his mother and he suffered from a personality disorder.

[42]        In Spruit, the offender received a three year sentence after pleading guilty to aggravated assault. The circumstances were, the offender became involved in a dispute with a taxi driver. The offender was intoxicated at the time and slashed the driver with a knife. The driver suffered cuts to his scalp, face, hand and wrist. The offender was 20, he did not have a criminal record, he was employed, he had the support of his family and the risk of re-offending was low.

[43]        In Thompson, the offender received a nine year sentence after being convicted of aggravated assault. The circumstances were, the offender approached the victim from behind and stabbed him multiple times. The victim suffered life-altering injuries. The stabbing was random and unprovoked. The offender was 21, he had a minimal employment history, he had a history with the mental health system and he had a criminal record. The offender’s motivation was to have others feel the pain that he was feeling. After his conviction, the accused was interviewed by doctors for a NCRMD assessment. During the interviews, it was discovered that the offender was feigning psychiatric symptoms with the hope of receiving a finding of NCRMD. Ultimately, the offender was diagnosed with an Antisocial Personality Disorder and a Borderline Personality Disorder. Despite this, his stated motivation resulted in the sentencing judge concluding that the offender had a high degree of responsibility.

[44]        Mr. Mazerolle’s violent, unprovoked, and random assaults warrant a sentence that denounces and deters. Further, any sentence imposed must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Mazerolle’s level of responsibility.

[45]        In the circumstances, I decline to follow the sentence recommended by counsel for Mr. Mazerolle. This is because such a sentence would fail to adequately denounce or deter, nor, would it be proportional to the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Mazerolle’s level of responsibility. I also decline to impose a sentence sought by the Crown because the range offered would not be proportional in that it would be too harsh.

[46]        In my view, and keeping in mind all of the relevant factors, I impose a global sentence of 7 years, which is above the range stated in Craig. Subtracted from the 7 years will be the pre-sentence custody of 958 days which credited at 1.5 for every day totals 1,437 days (3 years, 11 months) leaving a remaining sentence of 3 years, 1 month. I see this sentence as one that adequately denounces and deters while being proportional. I also observe that the sentence gives Mr. Mazerolle an opportunity to avail himself of psychiatric resources thus assisting him with his reintegration and rehabilitation.

[47]        Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code, I order that Mr. Mazerolle provide a sample of his DNA.

[48]        Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Mazerolle is prohibited from possessing firearms and all other items in that section for a period of 10 years.