R. v. Stevenson, 2021 BCPC 214 (CanLII)
|
|
2021 BCPC 214 |
|
|
Date: |
||
|
File No: |
6995-1-K |
|
|
Registry: |
Masset |
|
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA
v.
RYAN ROBERT FRANK STEVENSON
ORAL RULING RE SECTION 502(2) CRIMINAL CODE APPLICATION
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON
|
Counsel for the Crown: |
A. Thomas (appearing by teleconference) |
|
Counsel for the Defendant: |
E. Murphy (appearing by teleconference) |
|
Appearing as Amicus Curiae: |
B. Sundhu |
|
Place of Hearing: |
Masset, B.C. |
|
Date of Hearing: |
August 12, 2021 |
|
Date of Judgment: |
August 12, 2021 |
[1] This is my ruling regarding the application brought by Ryan Robert Frank Stevenson pursuant to s. 502(2) of the Criminal Code to replace the March 15, 2021 undertaking he gave to a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a release order under ss. 515(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The BC Prosecution Service has approved a single count of assault against Mr. Stevenson in relation to this matter in Masset Court Information 6995-1-K:
Count 1
Ryan Robert Frank STEVENSON, on or about the 14th day of March, 2021, at or near Port Clements, in the Province of British Columbia, did commit assault of Jennifer Sheppard, contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code.
[3] Somewhat unusual - at least in these courts - is that Mr. Sundhu, who is not counsel for the complainant Jennifer Sheppard, has appeared “as a friend of the court” explaining to the court Ms. Sheppard’s position regarding Mr. Stevenson’s application.
[4] Ms. Murphy is counsel for Mr. Stevenson. She has set out Mr. Stevenson’s rationale for the application and has included as part of the filed application a two-page typed document that reads, and I quote:
The accused seeks replacement of the Undertaking with a Release order on the same terms as those in the Undertaking with an exception as follows: (see attachment)
(attachment to Application of Ryan STEVENSON)
to enable the accused in the company of his friend Raven Engel and the RCMP, for one time to attend the accused's property located at 260 Bayview Drive, Port Clements, BC, to retrieve the following items:
- The 2016 Ford F-150 pick-up truck registered solely in the name of the accused, including making such repairs to truck as are necessary to enable the truck to be moved off the property;
- The accused's tools, located inside and outside the house, and mechanical parts necessary for the accused's occupation as a mechanic;
- The accused's personal records, without limiting the generality of the term "financial records," including such records as bank statements, mortgage statements, taxation (personal, and property) documents, insurance documents and personal family records including letters and photographs;
- The accused's personal clothing.
The basis for this application is that the accused's Undertaking prevents him from attending at his home located at 260 Bayview Drive, Port Clements, a home for which the accused is the sole owner and, until the date of the allegation, the sole occupier for well over a year. The accused has scrupulously adhered to the conditions of his release, and on July 17, 2021, asked his friend, Jake Ronnenkamp, to attend the property to retrieve the truck for the accused. The accused needs the truck for work purposes (he is a licensed red seal mechanic and often has to attend at locations to assist clients).
Mr. Ronnenkamp's attendance was recorded by a CCTV located on a building that is tenanted. Mr. Ronnenkamp found that the two front tires had been slashed and the battery removed, and nails had been placed behind the truck. As Mr. Ronnenkamp was attempting to re-inflate the tires, the alleged victim in the within criminal matter came out of the house, and in a violent manner demanded that Mr. Ronnenkamp leave immediately, which he did. The CCTV footage will be provided to the court at the time this application is heard.
The accused takes the position that he is entitled to his property for his work and personal business, and the active attendance of the RCMP is necessary to ensure that the alleged victim, Jennifer Sheppard, is restrained from assaulting and harassing the accused and Mr. Engel.
[5] I should note that I was not provided with the CCTV video during the course of this application.
[6] Mr. Stevenson says that he solely owns both the pickup truck in question and the residence. Ms. Sheppard denies Mr. Stevenson’s ownership claims and says that she owns, at the very least, 50 percent of the residence and the entire beneficiary interest in the pickup truck, as a result of an agreement made between her and Mr. Stevenson.
[7] As a Provincial Court Judge I do not have the jurisdiction in family court to deal with the division of assets or to make a determination as to who owns the various contested items. However, as a Judge sitting on an application pursuant to s. 502(2) of the Criminal Code, I do have the ability to make an order of bail, which is binding on the accused and which may affect property rights.
[8] I have considered the entirety of the facts as provided to me in this particular case by the parties, including the allegation against Mr. Stevenson as alleged by the prosecutor:
a) On March the 14th, 2021, at approximately 10:20 in the evening, Ms. Sheppard’s mother called 9-1-1 and reported an assault.
b) The police attended to the address in question, located the residence, found that the door to the residence appeared to have been cut out by a chain saw.
c) The police entered the residence and inside they found Mr. Stevenson and Ms. Sheppard, apparently in a calm disposition.
d) Nevertheless, Ms. Sheppard told the police that earlier in the day Mr. Stevenson had grabbed her by the hair and hit her head against the counter by the microwave; thus the allegation that is set out in Masset Court Information 6995-1-K.
[9] In R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a number of teachings that bail court Judges such as myself must consider when conducting bail hearings. I take the position that the teachings in Zora are applicable to applications made by accused persons pursuant to s. 502(2) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, given the presumption of innocence, if I accede to Mr. Stevenson’s request to cancel the undertaking and replace it with a release order, I need to consider and set the minimal bail conditions that will allow for the effective enforcement of the judicial interim release regime, while limiting as much as possible interference with Mr. Stevenson's liberty.
[10] I also note, however, that pursuant to s. 515(13) of the Criminal Code I am obligated to consider the alleged victim (a.k.a. the complainant). Section 515(13) of the Criminal Code reads, and I quote:
A justice who makes an order under this section shall include in the record of the proceedings a statement that he or she considered the safety and security of every victim of the offence when making the order.
[11] Ms. Sheppard is the complainant. She is presently residing at the residence and has possession of the pickup truck. I am of the opinion that given the alleged facts in the present case and the submissions of Mr. Sundhu on behalf of Ms. Sheppard, that there is a distinguishment to be made between safety and security. Security includes psychological and mental health issues for Ms. Sheppard that may or may not be caused by the attendance of Mr. Stevenson at the property – regardless of Mr. Stevenson’s claim of ownership of both the residence and the pickup truck.
[12] I appreciate completely what Ms. Murphy has said about ownership of the residence, pickup truck and other items in question. Nevertheless, I also understand that Ms. Sheppard may, even if she is not physically on the property when Mr. Stevenson attends, feel that she has had her personal security violated by Mr. Stevenson attending on the property, never mind the other issues raised by Mr. Sundhu such as the possibility that Mr. Stevenson will search through personal property that belongs to Ms. Sheppard. One can assume, and properly so, I opine, that the police would not know what is or is not Ms. Sheppard’s personal property, and accordingly the police would not be in a position to stop Mr. Stevenson from looking through Ms. Sheppard’s personal documents, dresser drawers, and other things throughout the house.
[13] The solution, in my opinion, is to replace the undertaking with a release order that has conditions crafted specifically for Mr. Stevenson’s unique situation. So I cancel the undertaking and I am replacing it with a release order. The terms of the release order will be as follows. And again, pursuant to s. 515(13) of the Criminal Code, I have considered the safety and security of Ms. Sheppard in making this particular release order.
[14] 1002: You must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with Jennifer Sheppard. The exceptions are as follows: 1002(c) as allowed by a family or child protection court order made by a Judge or Master who has been given a copy of this release order. You must immediately file a copy of this release order in any family or child protection proceeding in which you are a party or become a party.
[15] 1002-(d) modified: During one attendance to the exterior of the residence, without entering onto the property, but for the purpose of picking up your work tools and clothing that will be placed at the end of the driveway by Jennifer Sheppard before 10 a.m. on Friday, August the 13th, 2021. Furthermore, you may attend as allowed by a family court order made by a Judge or Master.
[16] 1005-1: You must not go to or be within 100 metres of any place where Jennifer Sheppard lives, works, attends school, worships, or happens to be. If you see her you must leave her presence immediately without any words or gestures. The exceptions are as provided in the no-contact provision of this release order.
[17] 1103: You must report by telephone to a bail supervisor at the Prince Rupert Community Corrections Office, via telephone, 250-624-7435, or toll-free 1-877-602-2288, by 3 p.m. on Friday, August 13, 2021. If the office is closed you must continue calling daily during regular business hours until you have spoken to a bail supervisor and received further direction to report. After that you must report as directed by the bail supervisor.
[DISCUSSION RE RETURNABLE DATE]
[18] Now, to be clear, Mr. Stevenson, what I have done is allowed you to go at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning to pick up the items that Ms. Sheppard has agreed in court today to put out for you. You may want to contact the police to ask them if they want to be there in case you are afraid that something is going to happen, but I am not requiring the police to be there. You may not step on the property. If you do, you are in violation of this release order. Ms. Sheppard will ensure that she puts your items off the property so that you do not have to step onto the property.
[19] I have in no way, shape or form restricted your ability to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and get an order in relation to the assets that you say you are the owner of, but what I am not going to do is use the Provincial Court of B.C.'s criminal justice system to make a determination in a matrimonial matter, for which the jurisdiction lies in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I know that is not what you wanted, but that is the best I can do for you today, sir.
[20] That is my ruling. Thank you.
[DISCUSSION RE TIMING OF PICKING UP POSSESSIONS]
[21] Well, I am going to, on my own volition, change that condition, Madam Clerk, to between 10 a.m. and 12 o'clock noon, and then we will add the following sentence: If the items have not been collected or taken into possession by Mr. Stevenson by 12 o'clock noon, Ms. Sheppard shall have the right to reclaim the items and securely store them until such time as Mr. Stevenson brings a new application before the court. That way there is no uncertainty as to what will happen if they are not picked up by noon tomorrow.
(RULING CONCLUDED)