IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         Nicole Manuel has been convicted after trial of uttering threats to intimidate Gina Bowie and Darren Bonang from discharging their lawful duties as security guards without fear, the threats being made to them or their intimate partners or children.

[2]         Ms. Manuel is a member of Tiny House Warriors and is passionate in her opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX). The facts as I have found them are set out in my decision of R. v. Manuel, 2021 BCPC 140 (CanLII), 2021 B.C.P.C. 140 (CanLII). In short, the threats were made during the course of a protest with her co-defendant at a pump house property of TMX.

[3]         I have had the benefit of a thorough Gladue report which informs me that Ms. Manuel is a knowledgeable and determined advocate of the culture, heritage and rights of the Secwepemc people. She recognizes her role as that of a defender of land and water within the Secwepemc’uluw. Protest is part of that role.

[4]         It can be assumed that when someone protests something, they wish to be heard – that their message will be understood and that it will provoke thought, discussion and change. Ms. Manuel lost sight of those goals when she used language of intimidation against Mr. Bonang and Ms. Bowie.

[5]         Ms. Manuel has a dated record for prior protest activity. She is otherwise without record and has been on strict bail conditions without issue since October 2019. Crown seeks a 90-100 day Conditional Sentence Order followed by a year of probation with a view to general and specific deterrence as well as with a view to section 718.04, because Ms. Bowie is indigenous.

[6]         The impact on Ms. Bowie has been more profound than it seems Ms. Manuel recognizes. Ms. Bowie no longer wears her Simpcw logo and was concerned for her grandchildren, given the nature of the threats. Mr. Bonang was similarly impacted with security concerns for his family. It is no light matter.

[7]         Crown submitted that a jail sentence is essential because of the gravity of the offence and the impact on the victims. Mr. Killoran argued that a jail sentence, even a jail sentence in the community, is not necessary in these circumstances. He argued Ms. Manuel has been on bail conditions for almost two years without any breaches (and now more than two years). Her criminal record is dated. He seeks a conditional discharge following a period of probation for her.

[8]         I have seen through video the nature and extent of the threats. I have heard directly from the victims the impact it has had on them. I have also heard from Ms. Manuel and her counsel.

[9]         Protesting voices have the right to be heard but there are limits. I accept that Ms. Manuel regrets the impact of her misguided language.

[10]      Crown argues that a conditional discharge is not in the public interest. The public interest here is a complex issue. There is the right to peaceful protest balanced against the right to live without threat or intimidation. There are the rights and culture of indigenous people as a whole – who are in conflict with each other in matters related to the pipeline - contrasted with the sentencing considerations of indigenous people and with respect to indigenous victims. I must balance all of these in determining the appropriate sentence. Ms. Bowie in particular suffered the indignity of slurs against her heritage in addition to the intimidation.

[11]      That being said, I have done the balance and I am satisfied in the circumstances that the appropriate deterrent effect and rehabilitative components can be achieved through a conditional discharge. The importance of the right to protest is in the public interest. Abusing that right with threats is not. The length of time Ms. Manuel has been on bail and the regret she has expressed demonstrate that she understands this. While it will not detract from the impact the intimidation had on the victims, it is not otherwise contrary to the public interest to grant a discharge. The balance measures these factors, the prospects of deterrence and rehabilitation, and the public interests. I therefore discharge Ms. Manuel conditionally upon her completing a period of probation for 12 months.

[12]      The terms of the probation are as follows:

[13]      There were terms sought which I am not imposing including a reporting term which serves no other purpose than reporting her residence, and a weapons term which is not required given the nature of the intimidation and the time on release without issue.