Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut

Citation: R. v. Piugattuk, 2019 NUCJ 09

Date: 20190614
Docket: 07-18-10-1
Registry: Iqaluit

Crown: Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused: Dennis Piugattuk

________________________________________________________________________

Before: Mr. Justice Paul Bychok

Counsel (Crown): D. Garson

Counsel (Accused): A. Prevost

Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut

Date Heard: May 24, 2019
Matters: Judicial interim release review hearing pursuant to
Criminal Code s. 520(1).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

 2

I. BACKGROUND

[1] Dennis Piugattuk was charged with 23 indictable firearms-related

offences arising from an incident in Igloolik on April 3, 2018. Mr.
Piugattuk was arraigned on the charges the next day, and he
consented to his remand into custody.1 He was granted bail
eventually on a Recognizance on June 8, 2018, with his common-law
partner to act as his surety. In the meantime, he elected to be tried by
a judge and jury with a preliminary inquiry.

[2] On September 11, 2018, while still on bail, Mr. Piugattuk assaulted his
partner-surety who required medical treatment as a result of the
attack. Mr. Piugattuk was charged with assault causing bodily harm
and breach of his bail. He again consented to his remand. Mr.
Piugattuk pleaded guilty to these charges on February 13, 2019. The
Court sentenced him to 153 days in jail, time served, followed by 12
months of probation.

[3] Mr. Piugattuk again applied for bail on February 19, 2019. The
Justice of the Peace denied his application. Mr. Piugattuk remained
in jail on remand for the 2018 charges.

[4] I presided over Mr. Piugattuk’s preliminary inquiry on May 24, 2019,
and I committed him to stand trial on eight charges.

[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Piugattuk applied for bail
pending his trial pursuant to s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.2 I was
told by the lawyers that there had been procedural irregularities at his
February 19th bail hearing. The Justice of the Peace had remanded
Mr. Piugattuk without first hearing the submissions of the lawyers.
This is an error in law.3 I agreed that it was appropriate that I review
the order made by the Justice of the Peace on February 19th. I held
the bail review, and I reserved my decision. These are my reasons
for decision.

1
As often happens, Mr. Piugattuk reserved his right to a bail hearing until sometime in the future. Remand
means the same as pre-trial detention.
2
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code].
3
R v St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27, [2015] 2 SCR 328.
 3

A. Canada’s bail law

[6] Everyone charged in Canada with a criminal offence is entitled “not to

be denied reasonable bail without just cause.”4

[7] There is a “ladder” of increasingly more restrictive forms of bail

available depending upon the circumstances of the offence and the
offender.5 In appropriate cases, the Court may deny and remand the
charged person into custody pending his trial.

[8] A court may only deny bail if the prosecution establishes that pre-trial
detention is necessary for one of three reasons:

1. If detention is required to ensure the attendance of the accused at

trial (the “primary ground”);

2. In the interest of public safety including whether there is a

substantial likelihood that the accused, if released, will reoffend or
interfere with the administration of justice (the “secondary ground”);
or

3. If detention is necessary to uphold public confidence in the

administration of justice (the “tertiary ground”).6

[9] I will say more about the three grounds of detention in my analysis.

[10] Where, as here, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
accused has breached his bail conditions, the onus is on the accused.
In other words, the accused must satisfy the Court that his detention
is not necessary and that he ought to be granted reasonable bail.7

II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Defence

[11] Defence Counsel says there has been a material change of

circumstances in Mr. Piugattuk’s life. Mr. Piugattuk now has a bail

4
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the
Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 11(e) [Charter].
5
R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27 at para 4, [2017] 1 SCR 509.
6
Criminal Code, supra, note 2, s 515(10)(a)(b)(c).
7
Ibid, s 524(8)(b).
 4

plan which would see him released under the supervision of his
parents as sureties.
B. The Crown

[12] The prosecutor urged the Court to deny bail to Mr. Piugattuk on the
secondary and tertiary grounds.

III. ISSUE

[13] There are is one issue which I must decide: has Mr. Piugattuk
established that his continued detention is not necessary under either
the secondary or tertiary grounds?

IV. ANALYSIS

[14] Risk assessment is the fundamental consideration at this pre-trial

stage.8
A. The secondary ground for detention

[15] Mr. Piugattuk has not met his onus on the secondary ground. In other
words, there is indeed a substantial likelihood that Mr. Piugattuk will
reoffend if he is granted bail. I have come to this conclusion for the
following reasons:

1. Mr. Piugattuk has a serious, related, and recent criminal record,

including six violent crimes and four breaches of court orders:

a. 2009 – dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault and

uttering threats – suspended sentence and probation;
b. 2010 – aggravated assault, breach of probation – jail for three
years and six months, 10 year firearms prohibition order;
c. 2013 – assault, assault on a peace office, 2 breaches of
probation, mischief – 18 months conditional sentence;
d. 2016 – assault, 90 days jail and probation;
e. 2019 – assault causing bodily harm, bail breach – 153 days in
jail time-served and probation.

8
R v Jaypoody, 2018 NUCJ 36, to be released upon conclusion of the file.
 5

2. Mr. Piugattuk is charged with pointing a firearm at a police officer

who had responded to a report of possible domestic violence. Upon
Mr. Piugattuk’s arrest, the police discovered and seized six
unlawfully stored and illegally possessed rifles. Mr. Piugattuk was
intoxicated when he allegedly committed these offences;

3. Mr. Piugattuk has never had professional counselling for his

substance abuse problems;

4. Mr. Piugattuk’s release plan would have him live with his parents. I
was told his mother always keeps alcohol in the house, although she
has said she does not want him to drink anymore; and

5. Mr. Piugattuk has already released on a Recognizance with a surety

after a contested bail hearing. This is the most restrictive form of
bail on the ladder. He must have known how precarious his
continued freedom was in the circumstances. Still, he assaulted his
partner-surety and sent her to the Health Centre where she needed
four stitches to close the wound on her head.

[16] Mr. Piugattuk’s recent past behaviour is the best predictor of how he
may be expected to behave in the future. The risk that he will
reoffend is too great to permit his release again on these charges.
B. The tertiary grounds for detention

[17] Again, Mr. Piugattuk bears the legal onus, or the job of persuasion, to
satisfy me that the public will not lose confidence in the justice system
if he is released. To do so, he must address several aspects of the
case.9 I will discuss each one in turn.
i. The apparent strength of the prosecution’s case

[18] The prosecution’s principal witnesses are police officers. Mr.

Piugattuk surrendered himself to police shortly after the incident. The
seized weapons were found in Mr. Piugattuk’s residence immediately
after the incident. Mr. Piugattuk was bound by a 10-year firearms
prohibition order. The prosecution has a strong case against Mr.
Piugattuk.

9
These aspects are outlined in Criminal Code, supra note 2, s 515(10)(c).
 6

ii. The gravity of the offence

[19] Cpl. Greg Tannahill testified that immediately after the he announced
their entry, he saw Mr. Piugattuk pick up a rifle, deliberately load it
and turn to point the rifle at him. The offence is extremely serious.
iii. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence,
including whether a firearm was used

[20] Mr. Piugattuk’s common-law partner and young family were in the
home when the incident happened. Mr. Piugattuk put their lives and
those of the three attending police officers in grave risk.
iv. The fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially
lengthy term of imprisonment or a mandatory minimum jail term

[21] Mr. Piugattuk is indeed subject to a lengthy jail term if he is

convicted. (I note that this Court has already ruled mandatory
minimum punishments to be unconstitutional.10)
v. Other considerations

[22] Mr. Piugattuk was subject to a 10-year firearm prohibition imposed at

the time he was sentenced for aggravated assault. Despite the court
order, the police found him in possession of six firearms – none of
which were stored safely as required by law.

[23] Mr. Piugattuk has already been trusted once to keep the public peace
while on bail, and he failed to do so.

[24] I must ask myself how an objective, reasonable and informed person
would react if the Court were to release Mr. Piugattuk again. Mr.
Piugattuk’s breach of his Recognizance was not merely technical in
nature. He assaulted and grievously wounded his own surety. The
very firearm he is said to have pointed at Cpl. Tannahill was
possessed by Mr. Piugattuk in flagrant violation of the prohibition
order. Public confidence in the justice system would be shaken if I
were to re-release Mr. Piugattuk.

[25] Furthermore, Mr. Piugattuk’s release would seriously undermine

public confidence that the justice system takes firearm violence and
breaches of court orders seriously.

10
R v Ookowt, 2017 NUCJ 22; R v Itturiligaq, 2018 NUCJ 31; R v Nungusuituq, 2019 NUCJ 06.
 7

[26] Mr. Piugattuk has failed to meet his onus on the tertiary ground. I am
satisfied that Mr. Piugattuk’s re-release would undermine public
confidence in the administration of justice.

V. CONCLUSION

[27] For the reasons I have stated, Mr. Piugattuk’s application has failed
on both the secondary and tertiary grounds of detention.

[28] I deny Mr. Piugattuk’s request for pre-trial bail, and I remand him into
custody.

[29] Mr. Piugattuk’s case will return to Assignment Court in Iqaluit on

August 12, 2019.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 14th day of June, 2019

___________________
Justice P. Bychok
Nunavut Court of Justice