Supreme Court won’t consider Nunavik man’s appeal request

Man claims Indigenous background was not considered in pre-sentencing by Quebec trial judge in 2021

The Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear the case of Nunavik man who says his Indigenous status was not considered in pre-sentencing by a Quebec criminal court. (File photo)

By Jorge Antunes

A Nunavik man who claimed his indigeneity was not considered prior to sentencing two years ago has had his case dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“You can imagine how disappointed we are this morning by the decision of the Supreme Court,” said Aullaluk’s lawyer, Sarah Plamondon, adding she felt the case was “pivotal” for Nunavik.

Juusi Alasuak Aullaluk, of Akulivik, was initially sentenced to eight months in jail for intimidating his parole officer, to be followed by two years probation, in Quebec provincial court on Sept. 16, 2021.

That stemmed from an incident that occurred the month before, in August 2021.

Aullaluk had been on parole that year, however his parole was revoked and he was returned to Amos Detention Facility in Amos, Que.

Aullulak “was very upset to be back” at the facility, according to documents from the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Inuit Child First, Indigenous Services Canada

During a meeting with his parole officer on Aug. 3, 2021, Aullulak made aggressive and threatening remarks toward his parole officer.

“Due to his remarks … [Aullulak] was convicted of intimidation of a justice system participant,” according to appeals court.

That’s when he was handed the eight months sentence with parole to follow.

Aullulak appealed his conviction to the Quebec Court of Appeal, claiming the trial judge did not consider his “status as an Aboriginal offender” and did not have a Gladue report to consider prior to sentencing.

A Gladue report is a document often used in pre-sentencing for Indigenous offenders under the Criminal Code. It is one of the tools used to address and mitigate the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in Canada’s prisons and includes personal and historical details of Indigenous offenders in order to take those under consideration during sentencing.

“Neither the parties, who were both represented by counsel, nor the judge requested a pre-sentence report or a Gladue report, and none was prepared,” the Quebec appeals court noted in its judgment rejecting Aullulak’s appeal on Aug. 10, 2022.

Arctic Ventures, The Marketplace, This week's specials

The court of appeal disagreed with Aullulak’s claim, stating the trial judge did discuss his “status as an Aboriginal offender and the effects of that status on sentencing.”

While considering his case, the Quebec Court of Appeal authorized the “filing of fresh evidence,” including a pre-sentence report and a Gladue report.

That Gladue report presented, however, was related to another of Aullaluk’s cases.

The Quebec appellate court upheld the trial judge’s original ruling and denied Aullaluk’s appeal.

Aullaluk took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping it would overturn the decision of the lower court.

However, the Supreme Court released its decision July 27, refusing to hear his appeal.

Share This Story

(11) Comments:

  1. Posted by No Nonsense Larry on

    Then maybe he shouldn’t have intimated his parole officer, hopes he learns his lesson!

  2. Posted by Entitled much? on

    Unbelievable waste of resources. Thank you to the SCC for standing up to common sense. Laws should be applied fairly and evenly to all persons. As for making threats to your PO, play stupid games win stupid prizes

    • Posted by Corrosive ideas on

      The unsurprising consequence of teaching people their identity exempts them from consequences.

  3. Posted by Oh? on

    “Aullulak was very upset to be back at the facility”

    Well I’ll be damned

    • Posted by OmYu on

      Juusi might be disappointed his “indigeneity” was not an excuse for his anti-social behavior, I’m curious if he can see any wrong in his actions?

      Speaking from the experience of working in a correctional facility for many years lack of remorse and an inability to take responsibility are very common among offenders, especially those who repeat and are frequent returnees.

  4. Posted by Hunter on

    Violence, threats of violence and intimidation will not work in a free society.

    It is obvious he did not learn anything from his first go around in jail, I hope he learns more this time in so he can stay out.

    If he wants to continue to choose violent ways in his life, plan on spending more time in jail.

  5. Posted by Historically speaking on

    What would happen in the “good old days” if someone threatened an elder after they committed some crime against the community they are a part of?

    Methinks the consequences were more severe than 8 months.

  6. Posted by Mr.Miyagi on

    Im here for the comments.

    ? Play stupid games, win a stupid prize and go for double.

  7. Posted by 180 on

    The sad thing is he probably doesn’t realize he had done wrong, with trauma comes emotion and anger. If he has never been in therapy for what causes his outbursts and anger, then he will more than likely repeat his actions.

  8. Posted by Tulugaq on

    It’s really pathetic to believe that adding 18 months jail time to reduce the anger and the risks of reoffending! The evidence shows that the colonial court system is just exacerbating the violence in the communities and while we have no stats for Nunavik (lumped in the provincial stats) we know that violent crimes in Nunavut are almost 10 times higher than average Canadian stats and only the NWT comes close. Nunavik is even worse when a person is sent to jail over 1000 km from home in a foreign environment in Amos, QC.

    In fact, the court system adds insult to injury by disregarding Indigenous cultures (Gladue reports are often missed or a pathetic joke used by judges that know absolutely nothing of the communities and the Inuit culture, particularly in Quebec where there’s still a Southern circuit court that goes in the communities once in a while). Of course Aullaluk committed an offence but how should a society deal with such types of crimes in order to de-escalate the situation? Adding jail time?

    The SCC is particularly colonial in terms of Indigenous cases as this is the second case in a few years that involve Indigenous people and the lack of understanding by the courts of the cultures and the circumstances but in both cases (the other was Kingwatisak, from Nunavut) the SCC flatly ignored the important issue of the clash between a court system that has been exacerbating violent crime rates for decades and Indigenous cultures. This is a good example of Canada’s concept of decolonization and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

    • Posted by iThink™ is banned because cowards on

      Another incendiary critique of that dirty word ‘colonialism’ you love to lob around like a little grenade, but never any insight into how it should be done, or could be done, or any kind of alternate process at all. I strongly suspect you have no clue how a more appropriate model would look, so instead offer a bundle of visceral reactions
      and impressions.


Comments are closed.