The case of Shane Travis Hughes, who committed manslaughter with a firearm resulting in the death of his partner, Christine May Denham, was analyzed for an appropriate sentence.
The Crown sought a sentence of five and a half to six years, while Mr. Hughes asked the court to consider his guilty plea, pre-trial detention time in segregation, and steps taken towards rehabilitation as mitigating factors.
This article provides an overview of the case and an analysis of the factors that the judge considered in determining a reasonable and fit sentence.
The Offence:
On February 26, 2019, Christine May Denham was shot and killed by her common-law partner, Shane Travis Hughes, in their home in Chilliwack, BC. Mr. Hughes entered a guilty plea for manslaughter with a firearm and was sentenced for this offence.
Mitigating Factors:
Mr. Hughes had a difficult early life, but managed to secure employment as a scenic carpenter, providing trade skills for building movie and television sets. He met Ms. Denham in 2012 at a trade show where they were both working.
At the time the pre-sentence report was prepared, Mr. Hughes had difficulty with employment and was receiving disability assistance due to his depression. He also had a substance use disorder and had attended a number of recovery treatment centers over the years.
However, Mr. Hughes had made significant rehabilitative efforts and had been stable for a long time, according to medical office assistant Jenny Nanaquewitang at the Opioid Agonist Treatment Centre in Salmon Arm, BC. Mr. Hughes had also spent over 40 days in segregation as a result of being assaulted by a cellmate.
Rob Dhanu, a criminal defence lawyer, represented Mr. Hughes at the sentencing hearing. Mr. Dhanu argued that Mr. Hughes’ guilty plea, his time in segregation, and his rehabilitation efforts should be considered as mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.
Aggravating Factors:
The shotgun that Mr. Hughes used to shoot Ms. Denham was analyzed by a firearms expert who determined that it was a 12-gauge and a prohibited firearm because the barrel was sawn off.
During a search warrant executed by the police at the house, spent 12-gauge shot shells, live shells, ammunition, and various items were found. Mr. Hughes’ criminal record and conduct immediately after the shooting were also identified as aggravating factors.
The Judge’s Analysis:
The judge acknowledged that Mr. Hughes’ moral culpability was somewhere in the middle of “near murder” versus “near accident.” The judge weighed all the factors and decided on a reasonable and fit sentence.
The judge considered both the Crown’s argument of five and a half to six years and Mr. Hughes’ mitigating factors of guilty plea, pre-trial detention time in segregation, and steps taken towards rehabilitation.
In the end, the judge sentenced Mr. Hughes to four and a half years in prison, taking into account his guilty plea, his time in segregation, and his rehabilitation efforts.
The judge also considered Mr. Hughes’ difficult upbringing and his expressions of remorse. The judge noted that the use of a prohibited firearm was a serious matter and that firearms offences must reflect public concern and legislative changes by Parliament.
The judge heard arguments from both the Crown prosecutor and Mr. Hughes’ defence lawyer, Rob Dhanu, regarding the appropriate sentence for the offence.
The Crown prosecutor argued that a sentence of five and a half to six years in prison would be appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating factors, including Mr. Hughes’ criminal record and conduct immediately following the shooting.
Mr. Dhanu, on the other hand, argued that Mr. Hughes’ guilty plea, pre-trial detention time in segregation, and rehabilitation efforts should be considered as mitigating factors.
He also submitted letters of support from Mr. Hughes’ family and friends, who spoke to his positive qualities and progress towards overcoming his substance use disorder.
In his decision, the judge acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the aggravating factors, including the use of a prohibited firearm and Mr. Hughes’ criminal record.
However, he also considered Mr. Hughes’ difficult upbringing and rehabilitation efforts, as well as the fact that he had entered a guilty plea at an early stage in the proceedings, which saved the court time and resources.
The judge ultimately sentenced Mr. Hughes to four and a half years in prison, taking into account the mitigating factors. He noted that while the sentence was less than what the Crown had sought, it was still a significant sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
Conclusion:
The case of Shane Travis Hughes for the manslaughter of Christine May Denham is a tragic one that highlights the dangers of firearms and the importance of responsible gun ownership.
The judge’s decision to sentence Mr. Hughes to four and a half years in prison reflects the need for proportionate sentencing that takes into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The case also underscores the crucial role that criminal defence lawyers, like Rob Dhanu, play in advocating for their clients and ensuring that their rights are protected throughout the legal process.
Read the full judgement below:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: R. v. Hughes,
2023 BCSC 688
Date: 20230301
Docket: 68845-5
Registry: Chilliwack
Rex v. Shane Travis Hughes
Before: The Honourable Justice Winteringham
Oral Reasons for Sentence
Counsel for the Crown:
J. Lester
B.G. Oros
Counsel for the Accused:
R. Dhanu
R.J.K. Gill
Place and Date of Hearing: Abbotsford, B.C. February 9-10, 2023
Place and Date of Judgment: Chilliwack, B.C.
March 1, 2023
[1] These reasons were released as oral reasons for judgment. They have since been edited for distribution.
I. OVERVIEW
[2] On February 26, 2019, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Christine May Denham was shot one time by her common-law partner, Shane Travis Hughes, while at their home at 9480 Victor Street in Chilliwack, BC. Ms. Denham was taken to the hospital. She was declared brain dead on February 28, 2019, was taken off life support and declared deceased the next day, March 1, 2019, at 5:43 a.m. On that day, three children lost their mother. Sadly, she was already somewhat lost to them, having been in the throes of substance use disorder at the time of her killing. How tragic that this offence took away her chance to repair and restore the relationship with her children.
[3] Mr. Hughes is before the court for sentencing, having entered a guilty plea to one count that he did, using a firearm, commit manslaughter of Ms. Denham, contrary to s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Mr. Hughes is now to be sentenced for this offence.
[4] Prominent in manslaughter sentencing cases are two features that I wish to identify at the outset. The first is the disparate range of sentences available for the offence of manslaughter. In R. v. Badhesa, 2019 BCCA 70, the court stated:
[24] The offence of manslaughter encompasses conduct which has caused the death of another person and falls short of intentional killing. It covers a wide range of cases extending from “near accident” to “near murder” and different degrees of moral culpability attach along a continuum within that spectrum. A sentencing judge assesses moral culpability for manslaughter by considering the offender’s mental state in the context of the unlawful act itself and the offender’s personal characteristics, blending and balancing all in combination. Factors that weigh in the balance include intentional risk-taking, the harm caused, the normative character of the offender’s conduct, the degree of deliberation involved … and the element of chance involved in the resulting death …
[25] The purpose of the balancing exercise is to ensure that the sentence fits the degree of the offender’s moral fault for the harm done by the unlawful act underlying the offence of manslaughter. The measure of the fitness of a sentence lies in the principle of proportionality: a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. If a sentence for manslaughter passes this fundamental test it is a fit sentence. If it does not, it is unfit …
[5] Regarding this first feature, I must consider, among others, the factors identified in Badhesa, including intentional risk taking, the harm caused, the normative character of Mr. Hughes, the degree of deliberation involved, and the element of chance involved in the resulting death.
[6] The second feature that I identify at the outset is the peril of firearms in Canadian society. Justice Schultes made this clear when he examined the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter with a firearm in R. v. Penner, 2022 BCSC 175. At para. 141-142, Schultes J. said this:
[141] As the cases cited by the Crown make clear, the inherent danger posed by firearms and the corresponding duty on those who handle them to adhere to the appropriate standard of care require sentences that deter careless behaviour in others and express society’s collective condemnation of such carelessness. When it leads to the loss of a life, these sentencing objectives become even more pressing. Further, when manslaughter results from a lack of care, it does not mitigate its seriousness to say that the ultimate harm was not intended. As the cases explain, a criminal level of fault and responsibility arise from a lack of care to a marked degree.
[142] It is also clear that in recent years courts have reflected public concern and legislative changes by Parliament in a more stringent approach to sentencing for firearms offences than was previously applied. While this has been most prominent in the areas of street crime, organized crime, handgun possession, and other risks to public safety at large, I accept, as the sentencing judge in McMath found, that it is also meant to be reflected in firearms-handling offences such as this one, that take place outside a street or organized crime setting. The range of sentences identified in the pre‑minimum cases that have been referred to certainly needs some upwards adjustment to accord with this contemporary understanding of the harmfulness of firearms misuse.
[7] Justice Schultes’ words are apt here.
II. POSITION OF THE CROWN/DEFENCE
[8] Pursuant to s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, the offence of manslaughter with a firearm is punishable by a minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence of life in prison. However, this court in Penner held that provision to be unconstitutional at para. 186.
[9] In this case, Crown counsel takes the position that five and a half to six years is the appropriate sentence for the court to impose, in addition to ancillary orders, including the taking of a DNA sample, a lifetime firearms prohibition, non‑communication orders with members of Ms. Denham’s family and others, a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $200, and a forfeiture order of weapons and ammunition.
[10] The Crown and Mr. Hughes agree that he is entitled to credit for the time he spent in custody before his release in September 2020. Counsel agree that Mr. Hughes be given credit of 28 months, which is calculated as 550 days in pretrial custody multiplied by 1.5, totalling 837 days or, as I have said, 28 months’ credit.
[11] Taking into account credit for pretrial custody, the Crown’s sentencing position is thus 36 to 42 “new” months.
[12] Mr. Hughes contends that in the circumstances of the case and in consideration of Mr. Hughes’ steps towards rehabilitation, the court should impose a much shorter period of incarceration. Mr. Hughes suggests the court impose a sentence of three years. Less the time for pretrial credit, the sentence would be eight “new” months.
[13] Mr. Hughes does not dispute the imposition of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. Mr. Hughes takes the position that specific deterrence has been fully satisfied by the work he has done. In particular, his efforts towards maintaining his sobriety and taking steps to becoming a law‑abiding and contributing member of society, including becoming a more active and involved parent to his children.
[14] I pause to acknowledge that nothing this court does will bring back Ms. Denham. No sentence could. Sentencing Mr. Hughes is a part of a process that cannot be about vengeance. Rather, the court’s task is to craft a just and fit sentence, taking into account principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code and as guided by other cases, though I acknowledge that no two cases are exactly alike.
[15] I turn to a bit of a road map, so that you know the topics I intend to cover as I move through this decision:
a) I will describe the circumstances of the offence;
b) I will highlight some of the victim impact statements that were presented at the hearing;
c) I will then set out Mr. Hughes’ background, including his employment and family obligations. I will also address the evidence presented about his personal circumstances at the time of the offence, and the steps he has taken to address his criminal conduct. Additionally, I will provide an overview of character references that were tendered on his behalf and in support of him;
d) I will turn to the legal principles that govern my decision making in a case such as this.
e) Finally, I will set out my analysis that forms the basis for the decision as to what I have found to be a just and fit sentence.
III. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE
[16] The background circumstances are contained in a comprehensive agreed statement of facts (ASF) that was filed as an exhibit at the sentencing hearing. The ASF is attached as Appendix A to these reasons for sentence. Some of the more salient factors are highlighted in the paragraphs that follow.
[17] However, I wish to pause here to acknowledge the children of Ms. Denham and Mr. Hughes. In the years prior to her death, the Ministry of Children and Families had become involved with these children because of protection concerns about them. At the time of her death, Ms. Denham’s three children had been placed into the care of their father, Patrick Morrison. Mr. Morrison, who addressed the court, and to which I will say more later, informed the court that Ms. Denham had not attended the court for the child protection proceedings involving her children. Mr. Morrison stated that in his opinion, she did not do so because she knew at this particular time in her life she was not well enough to be the mother she wanted to be for them. Though the children maintained contact with her in the few years before her death, those years were complicated by her substance use disorder.
[18] I turn then to an overview of the prominent factors.
[19] Ms. Denham and Mr. Hughes were in a common-law relationship at the time of her death and were residing at 9480 Victor Street. This was a home that Mr. Hughes owned, having received financial support from his mother and from Ms. Denham’s former spouse, Mr. Morrison. Photographs of the home were tendered at the sentencing hearing.
[20] In the ASF, counsel describe the home as in complete disarray and full of clutter and drug paraphernalia. Having reviewed the photographs, that is a very accurate description. The two, Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham, were actively using illicit drugs. Their relationship was described as tumultuous. Mr. Hughes admitted that a neighbour had reported yelling and screaming by both he and Ms. Denham, and that was a normal occurrence.
[21] At the time of this offence, Mr. Hughes was on a bail order from November 5, 2018. The bail order was three and a half months old when Ms. Denham was killed. The bail order included a condition that required Mr. Hughes not to be in possession of any firearm. As such, Mr. Hughes was on a release order when he committed manslaughter.
[22] On March 10, 2021, Mr. Hughes pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and uttering threats. The offences related to events that occurred on September 2, 2018, and did not relate to Ms. Denham. He received a sentence of a six‑month conditional sentence order and a 12-month probation order.
[23] Mr. Hughes also has a conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance from events that occurred on July 9, 2003. He was sentenced on June 27, 2005, to a six‑month conditional sentence order.
[24] I turn to the events of February 26, 2019.
[25] On that day, Ms. Denham and Mr. Hughes had planned to go to Langley, BC and had organized a ride with an acquaintance, Crystal Derkach. The two were not ready to go when Ms. Derkach first arrived. Ms. Derkach left, planning on returning later.
[26] At approximately 12:30 p.m., Ms. Derkach returned to the residence and parked in front. Ms. Denham was still not ready to leave. She and Mr. Hughes were arguing about having lost the house keys.
[27] The ASF described the pivotal events as follows:
a) Mr. Hughes was angry with Ms. Denham because she could not find the house keys. For about 15–20 minutes, Mr. Hughes was shouting at Ms. Denham from outside the residence, as he was going back and forth between the house and the car.
b) While Ms. Derkach was waiting for the couple, Mr. Hughes exited the home and placed a black hockey bag and a red cardboard box into the trunk of her car.
c) When Mr. Hughes re-entered the home at approximately 1:00 p.m., he saw a black Remington pump action shotgun. The shotgun was laying on the floor in the foyer near the inside of the front of the home.
d) Mr. Hughes picked up the shotgun.
e) Mr. Hughes did not own the shotgun and he had not fired it in the past.
f) When Mr. Hughes picked up the shotgun, he did not know if it was loaded. He did not check if it was loaded. He took no steps to make the shotgun safe, including checking whether the safety was on or off.
g) In fact, at that time, the shotgun was loaded with three live shot shells; one in the chamber and two in the magazine tube.
h) Mr. Hughes moved from the foyer to the living room while holding the shotgun. Ms. Denham was in the living room at that time.
i) The argument continued and at some point, Ms. Denham tried to get the shotgun away from Mr. Hughes. It was then that the shotgun unintentionally discharged once, shooting her in the abdomen.
j) When it discharged, the muzzle of the shotgun was not more than one metre away from Ms. Denham.
[28] Mr. Hughes had been inside the home for approximately ten minutes when he ran out carrying the shotgun and exclaiming something to the effect of, “she got shot, she got shot.”
[29] Ms. Denham was shot approximately one minute before Mr. Hughes exited the residence.
[30] Mr. Hughes threw the shotgun into the backseat of Ms. Derkach’s car, and he told her to get rid of the shotgun. She left immediately with the shotgun in her car.
[31] Later, Ms. Derkach told the police that she dumped the shotgun, the hockey bag, and red box at a rural location east of Chilliwack. The hockey bag with the contents was found on March 2, 2019. It contained the red box which had 12‑gauge and 7.62‑millimetre ammunition, a 7.62‑millimetre SKS rifle, an unattached rifle scope, and a black garbage bag containing the shotgun.
[32] Approximately 55 seconds after he had exited the home, Mr. Hughes went back into the residence. He stayed in the residence for 38 seconds before he exited for a final time. After Ms. Denham was shot, Mr. Hughes dialled 9‑1‑1 from the house phone. Mr. Hughes then gave the phone to Ms. Denham.
[33] A video was played during the sentencing hearing and was marked as an exhibit. The video clip was from a neighbouring home and was taken at a distance. However, Mr. Hughes was depicted leaving the home and taking something to Ms. Derkach’s car. He then returned to the home. After Ms. Denham was shot, Mr. Hughes was seen leaving the house and walking along the street.
[34] Mr. Hughes called a taxi at 1:06 p.m. He phoned his mother, Barb Cator, and told her there had been an incident and asked her to call 9‑1‑1. Ms. Cator called 9‑1‑1 at 1:15 p.m.
[35] At about 1:43 p.m., Mr. Hughes called another taxi and he was picked up around a grocery store and then dropped off at the Colossus Movie Theatre in Langley. He went into the theatre where he fell asleep for several hours.
[36] I turn back to the events inside of the home.
[37] Ms. Denham started speaking with a 9‑1‑1 operator at about 1:03 p.m. Her conversation continued until the police arrived. To the 9‑1‑1 operator, Ms. Denham said this:
· She wanted help; she wanted an ambulance;
· She had been shot by a shotgun;
· She did not know who shot her;
· She tried to get the gun away from the man who shot her;
· The injury hurt and there was lots of blood; and she was going to die.
[38] When the police arrived at 1:07 p.m., Ms. Denham told them that the shooter was no longer in the house. Constable Biagioni found Ms. Denham in the living room laying on her back. He saw that she was holding her stomach and was bleeding. He saw what appeared to be a gunshot wound to her abdomen, but noted that from what he could see, there was minimal blood.
[39] Emergency Health Services arrived and tried to treat Ms. Denham and the wound to her abdomen. She was lethargic, but was able to speak to police and the emergency health services attendants while at the house.
[40] When asked who had shot her, Ms. Denham said she did not know.
[41] She was transported to Chilliwack Airport for air transport to Royal Columbian Hospital. However, before the air ambulance took off, she went into cardiac arrest and was then transported to Chilliwack General Hospital. She was taken to an operating room at Chilliwack Hospital at 3:20 p.m. and the shotgun shell was removed.
[42] After surgery, there was no detected brain activity, and she was transported to Royal Columbian Hospital.
[43] Ms. Denham was declared brain dead at 8:30 a.m. on February 28, 2019, and she was taken off life support and declared deceased on March 1, 2019, at 5:43 a.m.
[44] A pathologist concluded the cause of death was a shotgun wound to the abdomen, stating at the preliminary hearing that he observed “numerous small, round, grey metal pellets consistent with birdshot, which is a type of shotgun ammunition.”
[45] Toxicology reports revealed a toxic (or lethal to some) level of methamphetamine for Ms. Denham. She also had traces of cocaine and fentanyl in her urine.
[46] A firearms expert analyzed the shotgun and determined it was a 12‑gauge and prohibited firearm because the barrel was sawn off and the barrel length is approximately 2.7 centimetres less than required for it to be classified as a non‑restricted firearm.
[47] The police executed a search warrant at the house on February 27, 2019, and located the following:
a) Spent 12‑gauge shot shell on the living room floor;
b) Two boxes of 12‑gauge shot shells on a shelf in the living room;
c) A live 12‑gauge shot shell on a table in the living room;
d) A .177 calibre air rifle on the floor in the living room;
e) A 7.62 round in the living room; and
f) In a kitchen cupboard, an ammunition magazine loaded with 7.62 rounds.
[48] When the police examined the shotgun, it had a spent shot shell in the chamber and two live shot shells in the magazine.
[49] Mr. Hughes admitted the following:
a) When he put the hockey bag in the red box in Ms. Derkach’s car, he knew that the SKS rifle and the rifle scope were in the hockey bag and ammunition was in the red box; and
b) On and before February 26, 2019, Mr. Hughes knew that the shotgun and some ammunition was in the home.
[50] Mr. Hughes was arrested and charged with the murder of Ms. Denham on March 8, 2019. He remained in custody until September 2020. As I mentioned earlier, he was subject to a stringent release order, including house arrest and electronic monitoring conditions, since his release on September 22, 2020.
IV. IMPACT OF THE OFFENCE
[51] I cannot do justice to the profound sentiments expressed by each and every person who provided the court with a statement about the impact this offence has had on them. A collection of victim impact statements was filed as an exhibit and many of the authors presented their statements of impact at the sentencing hearing.
[52] I will make a few general comments about the expressions of grief and sorrow. I will then touch on a selected few. Please know that I have read and considered each one.
[53] Those who prepared statements included Ms. Denham’s three children, Ms. Denham’s former spouse, and a long‑time friend of Ms. Denham.
[54] There were a few sentiments that were common to each of the statements.
[55] First, a few spoke about how they felt responsible in some way for what had occurred. Second, despite her very active substance use disorder at the time of her death, her children knew that she loved them. How sad for them that she never got a chance to get well so that she could return to the mother that they obviously had very fond memories of. And the third feature that was evident from the many statements was the physical and psychological toll that her death has had on those who loved her.
[56] Ms. Denham’s former spouse spoke first. He wrote about Ms. Denham’s human qualities. He wrote:
some of her beauty was that she was a smart caring person. And that is what may have been her downfall because she was so caring she always wanted to help everyone and she wanted to save the people that came into her life.
[57] He also described his observations of how Ms. Denham’s death has impacted their three children.
[58] Her children had a complicated relationship with their mother. Life is messy, and that was evident as they tried to reconcile the state of their relationship with her and her untimely death.
[59] Her children were profoundly impacted by the premature loss of their mother.
[60] I will touch on just a very few comments that were made in their statements. Each of them wrote beautifully about the impact this offence has had.
[61] Patrick Denham-Morrison is the oldest of the three children. Now in his early 20s, he wrote with a wisdom that is not often seen in someone so young. He acknowledged the “scary and confusing time” when he had been living with his mother. Of interest, he had the wise insight to recognize that this was a confusing and scary time for his mother as well, not just her children. He spoke about her decline and how she was no longer “the woman she used to be”. Sadly, he expressed guilt, seemingly for not being able to provide her the life he thought she deserved, as he wrote, “I just wanted my mother to be happy.”
[62] Daye Denham-Morrison is Ms. Denham’s second child. He wrote about the loss of his relationship with his mother before she was killed. He described the impact of her substance use disorder on he and his siblings. He wrote about the loss of opportunity to re‑establish the relationship with his mother. He put it this way:
There were still many things left unsaid to my mother. So many things I wanted to say to her but most of all that I love her. But now I will never get that chance and I will never get to know if she truly cared or loved me back, or if she actually wanted the best for me.
[63] He went on to describe the impact of his mother’s death on he and his interaction with his siblings, stating, “most of all I am sorry about what my mother had endured in her own home at the end of her life and not having a chance to say good-bye.” He wrote “although my mother wasn’t perfect, she would always somehow manage to bring a smile or happiness to the ones around her.”
[64] MaryLeigh Denham‑Morrison, Ms. Denham’s only daughter, wrote about her loss and the emptiness of not having her mother for the special occasions and milestones that come with a young life, such as graduation and shopping for prom dresses. MaryLeigh wrote about learning of the shooting and how she wished only that her mother would be okay and that she would “come home to us like the woman I remember.” She walked us through the details of what it was like for her when her father came home from the hospital and told her that her mother had been taken off life support and was dead. She expressed her longing for a time back when she remembered fondly her mother’s love of Christmas and holidays.
[65] I pause here just to acknowledge that Ms. Denham has raised three kind and thoughtful children and, despite being so unwell in the time leading up to her death, deserves credit for the role she played in the people they are becoming. Her three children in their own way identified that they lost the chance to see what could have been with their mother and to see her return to the person they knew in happier times.
[66] At this point, I adopt the eloquent words of Justice Williams from R. v. Sater, 2014 BCSC 1036, where Williams J. stated:
[44] In a case as tragic and horrific as this, where such enormous pain and loss and hurt has resulted, a pronouncement of this Court’s sentence does not really make anything better. The loss is as great as ever…
…
[46] Hopefully, in time, the wounds can heal somewhat.
[67] The victim impact statements tendered during this hearing could not more fully reflect the sentiment expressed in those words.
V. CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. HUGHES
[68] Two reports were prepared to assist at this sentencing hearing: a pre-sentence report that was filed February 3, 2023, and a report entitled “Gladue Report” dated January 27, 2023.
[69] Mr. Hughes advised that he was not relying on s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. However, I agree that the Gladue Report provided helpful background information and the report was referred to by both counsel. I have similarly relied on it for background information, including Mr. Hughes’ expressions of remorse.
[70] Mr. Hughes is 45 years old. His mother and father separated when he was six years old. Ms. Cator entered into a relationship with Ray Cator when Mr. Hughes was 11 years old. He has one biological sister and two stepsisters. He has had a difficult and often estranged relationship with his own father, Howard Hughes.
[71] Since his release from custody in September 2020, Mr. Hughes has been living in Sorrento, BC, with family friends, Judith Smith and Brent Jones. Mr. Jones is recently deceased. Before Mr. Jones died, Mr. Hughes was reported to have provided significant support for Mr. Jones, who required 24‑hour care as a result of quadriplegia.
[72] Mr. Hughes also resides with his girlfriend, Jeannie Jacques.
[73] Mr. Hughes has two children, Travis and Alivia Hughes, ages 14 and 11. His children are currently in the care of the Ministry of Children and Families. Ms. Cator is now attempting to adopt Travis and Alivia. Ms. Cator also resides on the same property as Mr. Hughes, though in a different residence.
[74] The Gladue Report provided some further details about Mr. Hughes’ upbringing and the intergenerational trauma that no doubt played a role in his development. The report revealed an extremely difficult life for his mother and her ultimate estrangement from her own six siblings. I have read the reports and agree with Mr. Dhanu’s submission about the impact this background has had on Mr. Hughes. He was labelled from an early age as a troublemaker and the confluence of factors were a gateway of what was to come next, including Mr. Hughes’ ultimate participation in the drug subculture and quitting school at a very early age.
[75] Despite these difficult early years, the report suggests that Mr. Hughes managed to secure employment as a scenic carpenter, providing trade skills for building movie and television sets. He met Ms. Denham in 2012 at a trade show where both were working.
[76] At the time the pre-sentence report was prepared, Mr. Hughes stated that due to his depression, he had difficulty with employment and he was receiving disability assistance.
[77] Mr. Hughes described his efforts to deal with his substance use disorder. He stated that “he never gave up hope” and always attempted to seek treatment, including methadone treatment. He attended a number of recovery treatment centres over the years, including Maple Ridge Treatment Centre and Kinghaven, both well‑known establishments for the treatment of substance use disorder.
[78] Mr. Dhanu described his effort to recovery as one who is able to present a strong story of rehabilitation, and stated that he has come a very long way since the time of this offence. Counsel invited the court to examine the four‑year window of the significant rehabilitative steps taken by Mr. Hughes on his road to recovery.
[79] Regarding his drug use at the time of the offence, Mr. Hughes pointed to a workplace injury to his hand in 2017. He reported that he had been prescribed Tylenol 3s and it was at this point that he relapsed because, he says, “the Tylenol 3s were not effective in pain management.”
[80] Darren Hildebrandt, the pre-sentence report writer, stated this about Mr. Hughes’ substance use disorder:
Mr. Hughes states he has made many bad decisions as a result of his drug use and this has led to incarceration, employment problems, relationship problems and his children being removed from his care by [the Ministry of Children and Families]. Mr. Hughes reports that prior to the index offence, he and the victim had been awake for days and were both very annoyed, frustrated and disoriented. He states the extreme drug use and lack of sleep had taken a toll on them.
[81] Mr. Hildebrandt corroborated Mr. Hughes’ reports about rehabilitation. In particular, Mr. Hildebrandt contacted Jenny Nanaquewitang, a medical office assistant at the Opioid Agonist Treatment Centre or Treatment Clinic in Salmon Arm, BC, also known as the methadone clinic. She reported:
Mr. Hughes has been stable for a long time and is doing really well. She states he first reported to them on October 2, 2020 as a transfer patient and prior to this he was meeting with Dr. Gill … Mr. Hughes meets with Dr. Lorenz at the OAT clinic every eight weeks and … is currently prescribed Kadian and Seroquel … [he] has never provided a dirty urine sample … [he] receives counselling support as needed through the clinic with Barbara Grimes.
[82] As indicated above, Mr. Hughes has a criminal record and was on a release order that had been in place for three and a half months when he committed this offence.
[83] In addition to the significant rehabilitative steps taken, Mr. Hughes asked the court to take into account his pre-trial custody time. He informed the court that he was the victim of a vicious and unprovoked assault from a cellmate, where he was punched and kicked by his cellmate, and continues to suffer from complications relating to this assault. He spent his recovery at a medical unit and then was sent to segregation for his own safety.
[84] Counsel advise that he spent over 40 days in segregation as a result of this assault, and submits that the court should take this into account as a collateral consequence.
[85] Mr. Hughes also submits that the court should consider the stringent release conditions restricting his liberty after he was released from pre-trial custody in September 2020.
[86] A number of friends and family members prepared letters acknowledging Mr. Hughes’ hard work on his road to recovery. Included were letters from:
a) Barb Cator, Mr. Hughes’ mother;
b) Raymond Cator, Mr. Hughes’ stepfather;
c) Natasha Fehr, sister;
d) Judy Smith, family friend;
e) Brent Jones, family friend;
f) Jeannie Jacques, girlfriend; and
g) Destinee Hughes, niece.
[87] Though I have not identified every letter, I have read each one. I note that the authors all speak to the hard work Mr. Hughes has done since his release. I also note the remorse he has expressed for what he had done to Ms. Denham.
[88] Ms. Fehr wrote about her estrangement from Mr. Hughes until he reached out to her from Surrey Pretrial. From her observation, she started to see his “mind beginning to clear”. She wrote that she was beginning to see the brother she once knew resurface as he became sober. She speaks positively about his efforts at rehabilitation and the work he has undertaken to maintain sobriety.
[89] In sum, Mr. Hughes asked the court to consider the following as mitigating factors:
a) His guilty plea, including the genuine expression of remorse;
b) His pre-trial detention time in segregation;
c) Stringent bail conditions; and
d) The significant and effective steps that he has taken towards rehabilitation.
VI. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING AND THE GOVERNING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[90] The principles of sentencing have evolved in the Canadian common law and are now largely codified in the Criminal Code. Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.
[91] As set out in s. 718, the objectives of sentencing include: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; deterrence of the offender and others from committing other offences; separation of the offender from society where necessary; rehabilitation of the offender; reparation for harm done; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, including acknowledgment of the harm done.
[92] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code articulates the overall animating principle of sentencing, namely that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[93] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out a number of specific principles that a court must consider when imposing sentence, and these include:
a) the principle that a sentence should be increased or reduced to take account of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances the court finds to exist in respect of the matter before it;
b) the parity principle, which requires that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances;
c) the totality principle, which requires that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the total sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
d) the restraint principle, which requires that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if a less restrictive sanction is appropriate; and
e) the principle that all available sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered if they are reasonable and consistent with the harm done.
[94] Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code enumerates a number of statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances that will increase or decrease the length of a sentence to be imposed.
[95] In this case, counsel agreed that a statutory aggravating factor relevant to this case includes the fact that this offence involved Mr. Hughes’ intimate partner, pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(ii).
[96] Counsel also agree that Mr. Hughes’ guilty plea is a mitigating factor for the court to consider.
[97] I turn then to the jurisprudence regarding the offence of manslaughter and the applicable sentencing principles therein. Before I turn to the cases, I acknowledge again that no two cases are alike. It is important to bear in mind that certain legal principles can nonetheless be drawn from the cases, and it is those principles that animate and inform a court’s ultimate sentencing decision.
[98] It is well established in the case authorities that the usual range of sentence for manslaughter is from four to 15 years. A sentence below or above that range is imposed only in cases involving special circumstances.
[99] The wide range in sentences is due to the varying ways in which manslaughter can be committed. Moral blameworthiness varies because manslaughter may involve conduct ranging from near accident to near murder Regarding moral culpability, the Court of Appeal said this in Badhesa:
[24] The offence of manslaughter encompasses conduct which has caused the death of another person and falls short of intentional killing. It covers a wide range of cases extending from “near accident” to “near murder” and different degrees of moral culpability attach along a continuum within that spectrum. A sentencing judge assesses moral culpability for manslaughter by considering the offender’s mental state in the context of the unlawful act itself and the offender’s personal characteristics, blending and balancing all in combination. Factors that weigh in the balance include intentional risk-taking, the harm caused, the normative character of the offender’s conduct, the degree of deliberation involved, the existence of provocation and the element of chance involved in the resulting death: R. v. Plowman, 2015 BCCA 423 at para. 40, citing R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500 at para. 80; R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 at para. 247.
[25] The purpose of the balancing exercise is to ensure that the sentence fits the degree of the offender’s moral fault for the harm done by the unlawful act underlying the offence of manslaughter. The measure of the fitness of a sentence lies in the principle of proportionality: a sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. If a sentence for manslaughter passes this fundamental test it is a fit sentence. If it does not, it is unfit: Stone at para. 233; R. v. LaBerge, 1995 ABCA 196 at paras. 6-11; R. v. Draper, 2010 MBCA 35 at para. 7.
[26] Sentences imposed for manslaughter range from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment. Given that wide range, the judge must carefully determine the degree of an individual offender’s moral culpability and craft a sentence that accounts adequately for the unique constellation of relevant factors present in a case. The task is complex and sometimes factors unrelated to where the unlawful act falls on the “near accident” to “near murder” spectrum nonetheless bear on the degree of the offender’s moral culpability. Where an offender falls on the spectrum of individual moral culpability is a question of fact. Absent palpable and overriding error, that finding is entitled to deference: Plowman at paras. 39, 44-45, citing R. v. Richer, 2005 BCCA 3; R. v. Engebretsen, 2016 BCCA 182 at paras. 9-12, 17.
[100] Counsel referred to a number of authorities for the court’s consideration:
· R. v. Penner, 2022 BCSC 175
· R. v. Deo, 2022 BCSC 1835
· R. v. Brooks, 2016 ONSC 4645
· R. v. Ispanovic, 2008 BCCA 270
· R. v. Engebretsen, 2015 BCSC 1752
· R. v. McMath, 2015 BCSC 440
[101] I will briefly address these authorities.
[102] In Penner, Schultes J., after striking the four‑year mandatory minimum, imposed a lengthy and restrictive conditional sentence order of 23 months, taking into account 26 days of pre-sentence custody. Twenty‑five at the time of the offence, Mr. Penner was convicted by a jury of manslaughter using a firearm, killing his fiancée. On the day of the offence, the two of them were celebrating their engagement with friends in a trailer. They decided to go target shooting. Mr. Penner’s friend retrieved his rifle, loaded it, and test fired a round outside. He went back into the trailer and leaned the rifle against a counter. Mr. Penner picked it up and the gun discharged while he was checking it, striking his fiancée in the abdomen. The jury found his handling of the rifle was marked departure from the standard of care expected when handling firearms. Mr. Penner did not have a criminal record. Justice Schultes found that Mr. Penner’s blameworthiness was low because he believed the gun was unloaded when he picked it up.
[103] In Deo, Justice Watchuk imposed a sentence of five years for manslaughter with a firearm and two years’ consecutive for indignity to the victim’s body.
[104] In Brooks, the Ontario Superior Court imposed a sentence of seven years after being found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
[105] In Ispanovic and following a guilty plea to manslaughter with a firearm, the Court of Appeal determined that the appropriate sentence was six years.
[106] In McMath, Mr. McMath was found guilty of the unlawful act manslaughter and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
VII. ANALYSIS/DECISION
[107] In this case, both the Crown and the defence emphasize the importance of assessing moral blameworthiness to found the basis for the positions they take. As I have said, the Crown seeks a sentence of six years’ penitentiary time, less time served. The defence seeks a sentence of three years less time served. Both base their positions on the authorities referred to, as well as the factors present in this case, including the aggravating and mitigating factors.
[108] I start this analysis with my assessment of what I have found to be the aggravating and the mitigating factors.
[109] Crown counsel and defence counsel agree that Mr. Hughes’ guilty plea constitutes a significant mitigating factor in this case. Crown also agrees with the submission that Mr. Hughes’ compliance with strict conditions since September 2020 and the fact that he has been substance free can be considered as a mitigating factor in the circumstances presented in this case.
[110] I agree that both of these factors are mitigating in the circumstances presented here.
[111] I have also found as mitigating some of the factors identified by Mr. Hughes. I agree that the steps taken towards rehabilitation and his current state of sobriety are most worthy of consideration. I also note that these steps are corroborated by those who have taken on the responsibility of surety since his release into the community, as well as his treatment providers. There is no doubt that his substance use disorder has played a significant role in his criminal offending to date. His successful steps towards rehabilitation bodes well for his future and his self‑professed desire to live a crime‑free life.
[112] In terms of a mitigating factor, I agree that the time Mr. Hughes spent in solitary confinement, as well as the significant injuries he suffered as a result of a prison beating can be considered in mitigation. In my view, the proper approach, as stated by Justice Doherty in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, and accepted by Justice Skolrood in R. v. Fulton, 2021 BCSC 2721, is to treat time in segregation as a mitigating factor relevant to determining a reasonable and fit sentence.
[113] In the paragraphs that follow, I set out what I have found to constitute aggravating factors.
[114] First, the offence involved Mr. Hughes’ intimate partner. In light of the agreed statement of facts, including the verbal argument that was taking place between the two in the moments leading up to Ms. Denham’s shooting, I am satisfied that s. 718.2(ii) is fully engaged. In this case, Mr. Hughes picked up a firearm during the dispute and moved with it into the living room where Ms. Denham was situated.
[115] Second, Mr. Hughes has a criminal record. He was on a release order in February 2019. That release order was only three and a half months old when he committed this offence, and included a term that he not be in possession of firearms. I accept Mr. Dhanu’s submission that the firearm was not his and he did not know who brought the firearm to his home. I also appreciate that Mr. Hughes was in the throes of his addiction at the time the offence was committed and that the Chilliwack home was being used by others. Nonetheless, Mr. Hughes admitted that “on and before February 26, 2019, [he] knew that the shotgun and some ammunition was in the home.” The presence of firearms in the house in these circumstances was dangerous and in contravention of his release order.
[116] Third, the firearm that was used to kill Ms. Denham was a prohibited weapon because, as the expert analyst reported, the barrel was sawed off. I have been mindful of Schultes J.’s caution in Penner at para. 143 about “double dipping” and finding as an aggravated fact what is actually an essential element of the offence. However, here I am satisfied that Mr. Hughes’ handling of the firearm, prohibited as it was, the ongoing verbal dispute with Ms. Denham, and his failure to check to see if the firearm was loaded does constitute an aggravating factor to be taken into account in the court’s decision about sentence.
[117] Fourth, I consider that Mr. Hughes’ conduct immediately following the shooting constitutes an aggravating factor on sentence. That is, almost immediately after the shooting, Mr. Hughes ran out of the residence and directed Ms. Derkach to get rid of the shotgun. He did so in circumstances where he did not render aid to Ms. Denham as she lay on the ground with a bullet wound. Rather, he telephoned 9‑1‑1, gave her the telephone, and approximately three minutes later left her alone in the residence. I appreciate that he also reached out to his mother to ensure medical assistance was on its way. I also appreciate that his condition is certainly reflected in his next steps, which was to go to a movie theatre where he fell asleep. However, he left her alone. That is in the face of the reality that she was protecting him by not telling the 9‑1‑1 operator who shot her.
[118] As I consider Mr. Hughes’ moral culpability, I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. In this case, as I assess the conduct, I find this to be a situation somewhere in the middle of “near murder” versus “near accident.” Because of the ongoing dispute about the keys and the improper possession of the firearm in the home, though Mr. Hughes did not own the shotgun, I do not conclude that this is closer to a near accident case. Rather, as I have said, it is situated somewhere in the middle.
[119] Mr. Hughes has admitted he knew the firearm was in the residence before the killing. It is not surprising that Ms. Denham would try to get the shotgun away from Mr. Hughes, and though the discharge was unintentional, in all of the circumstances it was, without a doubt, reckless for him to have picked up the shotgun, bring it into the living room in the context of a continuing argument when she was shot.
[120] It is that conduct which reflects, as Schultes J. stated at para. 141 of Penner, “society’s collective condemnation of such carelessness.” And as Schultes J. stated, “when it leads to the loss of a life, these sentencing objectives become even more pressing.”
Further, when manslaughter results from a lack of care, it does not mitigate its seriousness to say that the ultimate harm was not intended. As the cases explain, a criminal level of fault and responsibility arise from a lack of care to a marked degree.
[121] I agree with Mr. Dhanu that specific deterrence is less at issue in this case, because of Mr. Hughes’ remarkable strides at rehabilitation and the evident progress he has made. I agree that I must consider rehabilitation as an important sentencing objective in this case. However, general deterrence and denunciation remain in play. The cases make clear that offences involving firearms and the misuse of firearms must take into account deterrence and denunciation to aptly reflect society’s condemnation of the improper use of firearms in our day‑to‑day living.
[122] As I consider the factors here, I have considered the range of sentences available in the cases relied on by counsel. Again, every case is unique and must be assessed accordingly. To that point, I refer to Watchuk J.’s analysis in Deo at para. 143 where she, citing from R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12, summarizing the process of sentencing, stated:
Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment. Whereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is “committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile. This is why proportionality sometimes demands a sentence that has never been imposed in the past for a similar offence. The question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.
[123] This was a reckless incident with tragic consequences. Mr. Hughes’ moral blameworthiness shifts to the higher end of the spectrum than in Penner and Engebretsen, largely because of the ongoing verbal dispute with his intimate partner, who was in a vulnerable state at the time, and his restriction from having a firearm.
[124] But for Mr. Hughes’ efforts at sobriety and rehabilitation, a six‑year sentence would have been appropriate. However, I do take into account the important work he has done and his expression of remorse for the events of February 26, 2019, which I accept as sincere.
[125] I agree that Mr. Hughes’ efforts to abridge his relationship with his own children will be impeded by a lengthy prison sentence. Part of the tragedy here is that Ms. Denham and her children were not afforded the same opportunity. That is, her children will never have the chance to reconcile or spend time with their mother.
[126] Mr. Hughes has made a commitment to live his life in the way he describes; that is to be employed, to be a good role model for his children, to maintain his sobriety and give back to his community. His awareness of the loss suffered by Ms. Denham’s children should keep him true to his words that he uttered here in the courtroom.
[127] I have concluded that what slides this case and these facts along the culpability scale is the fact that this shooting occurred during a non‑physical but verbal domestic dispute, and it is in that context that Mr. Hughes picked up a firearm. Though I accept he did not intend to shoot Ms. Denham, he was not permitted to have a firearm. How frightening for her in her altered state, as she tried to disarm him, and then was shot in her home, where she should feel safe and should have been safe.
[128] That said, I agree that Mr. Hughes must be credited for his hard work towards rehabilitation and the mitigating factors that I have earlier identified. In that regard, and considering the sentencing principles, I have decided that five years is an appropriate sentence in this case. That will be 60 months, less 28 months for pre‑sentence custody, for a total of 32 “new” months.
[129] I also impose the following ancillary orders:
a) A firearm prohibition for life pursuant to s. 109(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code;
b) DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(2);
c) Non‑communication order pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code:
i. Barbara Denham;
ii. Patrick Morrison;
iii. Patrick Denham‑Morrison;
iv. MaryLeigh Denham‑Morrison;
v. Daye Denham‑Morrison;
vi. Crystal Derkach;
vii. Jennifer Zdun;
viii. Christopher Baird; and
ix. Christopher Langmead.
d) Forfeiture of weapons and ammunition pursuant to s. 491(1)(b).
[130] I am waiving the $200 victim fine surcharge. Because Mr. Hughes will be serving a penitentiary sentence, he is thus not required to pay the victim fine surcharge.
[131] I direct that a copy of a transcript of these reasons be prepared and that the exhibits filed, be delivered to Correctional Services of Canada, pursuant to s. 743.2.
“Winteringham J.”
APPENDIX “A”
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Pursuant to section 655 of the Criminal Code and the agreement of counsel, Shane Travis Hughes admits the following facts for the purpose of the sentencing in this matter
Background
1. The accused, Shane Travis Hughes (“Mr. Hughes”), has a date of birth of May 12, 1977. At all material times, Mr. Hughes was living with his common law partner Christine May Denham (“Ms. Denham”) at their residence 9480 Victor Street, Chilliwack, B.C. (“the Residence”).
2. At all material times, the Residence was in complete disarray and full of clutter as well drug paraphernalia.
3. Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham had a tumultuous relationship, and both used drugs.
4. Their neighbor, Christopher Langmead, reported that yelling and screaming by both Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham was a normal occurrence at the Residence.
5. Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham both had children from previous relationships. The Ministry of Children and Family Development was involved in relation to the children. Child protection proceedings were underway due to concerns arising from substance abuse issues relating to Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham. Mr. Hughes’ children are Alivia Hughes and Travis Hughes. In February 2019, Mr. Hughes’ children were 8 and 11 years old, respectively; they were not living at the Residence. Ms. Denham’s children are Patrick Denham-Morrison, Maryleigh Denham-Morrison and Daye Denham-Morrison. In February 2019, Ms. Denham’s children were 13, 14 and 17 years old, respectively; they were not living at the Residence.
6. At the time of this offence, Mr. Hughes was on a bail order from November 5, 2018, with a condition requiring him not to be in the possession of any firearm. In relation to that file, Mr. Hughes pled guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and uttering threats. On March 10, 2021 Mr. Hughes received a 6-month conditional sentence order and a 12-month probation order. The circumstances of that matter did not involve a firearm. Mr. Hughes also has a conviction for trafficking in a controlled substance. He was sentenced on June 27, 2005 and received: a 6-month conditional sentence order; and a 10 year mandatory firearm prohibition. Those three convictions constitute his criminal record.
February 26th, 2019
7. On February 26, 2019, Ms. Denham and Mr. Hughes had made plans with an acquaintance. Crystal Derkach (“Ms. Derkach”) to obtain a ride to Langley.
8. Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham were not ready to go to Langley at the agreed time in the morning, so Ms. Derkach left in her vehicle from the Residence and planned to return later.
9. At approximately 1230 hours, Ms. Derkach returned to the Residence with the intention of driving Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham to Langley.
10. Upon Ms. Derkach’s return to the Residence, she parked in front of the Residence on Victor Street, but Ms. Denham was still not ready to leave. Mr. Hughes and Ms. Denham were arguing about Ms. Denham having lost the house keys.
11. Mr. Hughes and Ms. Derkach were anxious to make the trip to Langley. Ms. Derkach had to take care of her children that afternoon.
12. Mr. Hughes was angry with Ms. Denham because she could not find the house keys. For about 15 to 20 minutes, Mr. Hughes was shouting at Ms. Denham from outside the Residence, as he was going back and forth between the Residence and Ms. Derkach’s vehicle.
13. During the time Ms. Derkach was waiting to make the drive to Langley, Mr. Hughes exited the Residence and placed a black hockey bag (the “Hockey Bag”) and a red cardboard box (the “Red Box”) into the trunk of Ms. Derkach’s vehicle.
14. When Mr. Hughes re-entered the Residence at approximately 1300 hours, he saw a black Remington pump action shot gun (“the Shot Gun”). The Shot Gun was laying on the floor in the foyer near the inside of the front door of the Residence. Mr. Hughes picked up the Shot Gun.
15. The Shot Gun was analyzed by a firearms expert Evelyn Pederson. She determined that it is a 12 gauge and it is a prohibited firearm: because the barrel was sawn off and the barrel length is approximately 2.7 centimeters (1.06 inches) less than required for it to be classified as a non-restricted firearm. The overall length of the Shot Gun is 95.7 centimeters (37.67 inches).
16. Mr. Hughes did not own the Shot Gun and he had not fired it in the past.
17. At the time Mr. Hughes picked up the Shot Gun he did not know if it was loaded: he did not check if it was loaded; he took no steps to make the Shot Gun safe, including checking whether the safety was on or off.
18. At that time, the Shot Gun was loaded with three live shot shells—one in the chamber and two in the magazine tube.
19. Mr. Hughes moved from the foyer to the living room while holding the Shot Gun. Ms. Denham was in the living room at that time.
20. The argument continued and at some point Ms. Denham tried to get the Shot Gun away from Mr. Hughes. It was then that the Shot Gun unintentionally discharged once— shooting her in the abdomen.
21. The muzzle of the Shot Gun was not more than one meter away from Ms. Denham when it discharged.
Mr. Hughes’ After the Fact Conduct
22. Mr. Hughes had been inside the Residence for approximately 10 minutes when he ran out carrying the Shot Gun and exclaiming something to the effect of “she got shot, she got shot!”.
23. Ms. Denham was shot approximately one minute before Mr. Hughes exited the Residence.
24. Mr. Hughes threw the Shot Gun into the backseat of Ms. Derkach’s vehicle. And Mr. Hughes told Ms. Derkach to get rid of the Shot Gun.
25. Ms. Derkach left the scene immediately. While waiting outside the Residence, Ms. Derkach remained in her vehicle parked on the street; however, she did exit the vehicle once, shortly after 1240 hours, to attend briefly at the front door of the Residence.
26. After leaving the Shot Gun in Ms. Derkach’s car, Mr. Hughes re-entered the Residence— approximately 55 seconds after he had exited.
27. Mr. Hughes remained in the Residence for approximately 38 seconds before he exited a final time.
28. At some time after Ms. Denham was shot, but before Mr. Hughes left the Residence the final time, Mr. Hughes dialed 911 from the house phone. Mr. Hughes then gave the phone to Ms. Denham.
29. Once away from the Residence, Mr. Hughes called a taxi at 1306 hours. At 1317 hours, he was picked up at 45914 Yates Avenue, Chilliwack (approximately one kilometer away from the Residence). He was dropped off at 45788 Luckakuck Way, Chilliwack (“The Real Canadian Superstore”).
30. After he left the Residence, Mr. Hughes called his mother, Barb Cator, told her there had been an incident at the Residence and asked her to call 911. Barb Cator called 911 at 1315 hours.
31. At 1343 hours, Mr. Hughes called another taxi. He was picked up in the vicinity of The Real Canadian Superstore; and he was dropped off at the Colossus Theatre in Langley, BC. Mr. Hughes then went into a movie theatre, where he fell asleep for several hours.
Emergency Response Starting on February 26th, 2019
32. At approximately 1303 hours, Ms. Denham started speaking with a 911 operator; and that conversation continued until police arrived.
33. In the 911 recording, Ms. Denham said that; she wanted help; she had been shot by a shot gun; she wanted an ambulance; she did not know who shot her; she tried to get the shot gun away from the man who shot her; the injury hurt and there was lots of blood; she was going to die; and once police arrived, she said to them that the shooter was no longer in the Residence.
34. Police arrived on scene at approximately 1307 hours.
35. Cst. Biagioni attempted to enter the Residence via the front entrance, but was unable to do so.
36. Police entered the Residence through the back door—after Cst. Wall kicked it open after repeated attempts.
37. Once in the Residence, Cst. Biagioni located Ms. Denham laying on her back in the south-west comer of the living room. He saw that she was holding her stomach and that she was bleeding. He observed what appeared to be a gunshot wound to her abdomen and from what he could see there was minimal blood.
38. Cst. Wall also observed the wound to Ms. Denham’s abdomen. In his opinion, there was not a lot of blood; but he observed that she was wearing a thick sweater, which may have obstructed blood from being visible.
39. Ms. Denham began to lose more blood prior to EHS arrival.
40. EHS arrived on scene and attended to the wound to Ms. Denham’s abdomen.
41. Ms. Denham was lethargic but awake enough to speak to police and EHS at the scene.
42. Police and EHS (at different times) asked Ms. Denham if the wound was self-inflicted, and she said that it was not.
43. Police asked Ms. Denham who shot her and she said she did not know.
44. Ms. Denham was transported to Chilliwack Airport for air transport to Royal Columbian Hospital (“RCH”). But before the air ambulance took off, Ms. Denham went into cardiac arrest, so she was transported to Chilliwack General Hospital (“CGH”).
45. At 1520 hours, Ms. Denham was taken into the operating room at CGH. During surgery, physicians removed a plastic wad from Ms. Denham’s abdomen. That wad surrounded the pellets in the shot gun shell and exited the muzzle with the pellets when the shot gun was fired.
46. After surgery, Ms. Denham was in stable condition, but there was no detected brain activity. She was transported to RCH for further assessment.
47. Ms. Denham was declared brain dead at 0830 hours on February 28, 2019. She was taken off life support and declared deceased on March 1, 2019 at 0543 hours.
48. A pathologist concluded that the cause of death was a shot gun wound to the abdomen. At the preliminary hearing, the pathologist said he observed the following: “numerous small, round grey metal pellets consistent with birdshot which is a type of shot gun ammunition”.
49. Toxicology tests performed after Ms. Denham’s death revealed a level of methamphetamine in her system that could be toxic or lethal; however, Ms. Denham had a history of substance abuse. According to the pathologist, chronic substance abusers can tolerate such high levels of methamphetamine. Additionally, toxicology reports showed traces of cocaine and fentanyl in Ms. Denham’s urine.
Police Investigation
50. Police interviewed Ms. Derkach on March 1, 2019 and again the next day. During the second interview, Ms. Derkach said that on February 26, 2019; she drove east of Chilliwack; she stopped at a rural location; and she tossed into a wooded area the Hockey Bag, along with the Shot Gun and the Red Box. She told police that she had put the Shot Gun into the Hockey Bag before she threw all of the items into the wooded area.
51. After the police spoke with Ms. Derkach, and following the directions provided by Ms. Derkach, Cst. Pierotti drove east from Chilliwack and exited Highway 1 at the Peters Road exit. At approximately 1120 hours on March 2, 2019, the constable located the Hockey Bag.
52. In the Hockey Bag, police located the following; the Red Box, which contained 12 gauge and 7.62mm ammunition; a 7.62 mm. SKS rifle (which is a firearm); an unattached rifle scope; and a black garbage bag containing the Shot Gun.
53. When he put the Hockey Bag and the Red Box in Ms. Derkach’s vehicle, Mr. Hughes was aware that: the SKS rifle, and the rifle scope were in the Hockey Bag; and ammunition was in the Red Box.
54. When police examined the Shot Gun, it had a spent shot shell in the chamber and two live shot shells in the magazine tube.
55. Police obtained a warrant to search the Residence and they did so on February 27, 2019 starting at 0955 hours. The items viewed and seized by police include the following; a spent 12 gauge shot shell on the living room floor; 2 boxes of 12 gauge shot shells on a shelf in the living room; a live 12 gauge shot shell on a table in the living room; a .177 caliber air rifle on the floor in the living room; a 7.62 round in the living room; and in a kitchen cupboard, an ammunition magazine loaded with 7.62 rounds.
56. On and before February 26, 2019, Mr. Hughes was aware that the Shot Gun and some ammunition was in the Residence.
57. Mr. Hughes was arrested and charged with murder on March 8, 2019. He remained in custody until September 2020, when he was released from custody pursuant to the terms of a Release Order.
