Crown seeks two-year jail term for Iqaluit woman who killed husband

The sentencing hearing for Eulalie Ussak, 53, of Iqaluit continued April 25 at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit. (PHOTO BY SAMANTHA DAWSON)

The Crown has asked for a two-year jail sentence followed by two years of probation as an “appropriate” jail sentence for Eulalie Ussak, an Iqaluit woman who pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter.

“There has to be acknowledgment that a life was lost,” Crown Prosecutor Leo Lane said April 25 in a sentencing hearing held before Justice Sue Cooper at the Nunavut Court of Justice in Iqaluit

Ussak, 53, pleaded guilty to manslaughter last October, conceding that her actions contributed to the death by smoke inhalation of her husband, Ken MacFarlane, 50.

Sending Ussak to a federal penitentiary in the South is not necessary, Lane said.

But he disputed evidence given a psychiatrist who diagnosed Ussak with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The man is not an expert in PTSD — which the the psychiatrist “admitted” to April 24, Lane said.

“[He is] not an authority on the disorder,” Lane said of the defence’s April 24 witness.

Lane also said the information Ussak gave the psychiatrist and her testimony contained contradictions and were “self-serving.”

“It showed a progression towards more extreme, and more violent incidents,” Lane said.

“The closer we get to the sentence date, the worse she makes things seem,” he said.

And he said there is a “natural tendency to embellish or exaggerate these claims.”

When Ussak first spoke to a probation officer, she reported “overall quite a good report of her upbringing,” Lane said.

However, during Ussak’s testimony, her characterization of her mother changed and become more judgmental, he said.

Testifying April 24 in court, Ussak said she remembered being hit with a snowmobile belt by her father, and that she had a hard time opening up to her mother.

Lane said that Ussak flip-flopped between saying that her first husband hit her, that he never hit her and only pulled her by the hair, to an admission that he hit her only once, to an admission that he hit her every weekend. The probation officer’s report, sent to the psychiatrist, did not mention any abuse by her first husband.

There is no explanation for Ussak’s “rapid” contradictions, Lane said.

Lane also pointed to Ussak’s testimony when she said she didn’t yell at her second husband, Ken MacFarlane, to saying that she only yelled at him when she was a safe distance away.

“The evidence is unreliable, making Dr. Ahmed’s opinion’s and diagnosis unreliable,” Lane said.

However, he “didn’t mean to paint Mr. MacFarlane as an angel.”

“He was a mean drunk. He was probably an alcoholic,” Lane said. “He did abuse her, there’s no question.”

But on the question of whether that abuse reaches the extent that Ussak claims “there’s reason to doubt that.”

And the psychiatric reports don’t use post-traumatic stress to explain Ussak’s actions the night of the shack fire, he said.

In her account to the psychiatrist, Ussak said she had been exhausted after a week away from home.

She arrived back in Apex from Ottawa, and had missed her husband. She told him repeatedly to come to bed, which we wouldn’t, and that’s when she became “furious.”

The expert didn’t create a link “between the disorder and her [Ussak’s] conduct that night,” Lane said.

Among the mitigating factors in the case, according to the Crown: Ussak does not have a criminal record, Ussak was by all accounts a good mother, and Ussak has community support in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet.

However, there are many aggravating factors, including pre-meditation, Lane told Justice Cooper in his pre-sentencing submission.

These included Ussak’s daughter allegedly hearing Ussak say “I am going to burn that fucking shack down,” a few hours before the fire.

“She had more than enough time to consider the risks,” Lane said.

There was no evidence that “she wanted him [MacFarlane] dead. But this is not an accidental death case,” Lane said, saying the “tragic outcome” could hardly be considered a surprise.

Ussak poured the gasoline on the only entrance to the shack — ”she choose, arguably, the most dangerous spot,” Lane said.

Ussak also knew how stubborn MacFarlane was about staying in that shack, he said, and there was little reason to think that he was anywhere else but inside the shack.

Further, Lane continued, Ussak knew MacFarlane was grossly intoxicated and had in the past drank himself into unconsciousness and would not have been able to respond appropriately in that situation.

MacFarlane had a 185 alcohol concentration at the time of death — a level showing deep intoxication.

“It was definitely in her mind that he could make himself unconscious at any time,” he said.

Also, Ussak knew there were ignition sources in the shack such as the woodstove, MacFarlane smoking, and by some witness accounts, a candle, Lane said.

There was no running water or fire extinguisher in the shack.

Among the other aggravating factors: the fire put other lives at risk, such as first responders, as well as the safety of neighbours and neighbours’ properties.

Two of Ussak’s children, 17 and 13, were there when she poured the gasoline.

“They saw their mother pour the gas, they would have known he was in danger, and they have to live with those memories.”

The daughters said they should return, but Ussak, according to the statement of facts, said, “no, we should wait half an hour.”

Her daughter eventually called the Iqaluit emergency dispatch number.

Ussak, wearing a grey woolen sweater, sat quietly during proceedings, with her head bowed and eyes cast downward.

Earlier on April 25, the defense called on Ussak’s sister as a witness.

The hearing continues through the afternoon of April 25.