Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
REGINA
v.
Counsel for the Crown: David Butcher, Q.C., Anila Srivastava, Lisa Sturgess
Counsel for the Defendant: Ian Donaldson, Q.C., Sara Clouston
Place of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.
Dates of Hearing: October 12, 2017; January 16, 17, 18, 19, 2018
Date of Judgment: January 31, 2018
R. v. Bonney Page 1
[1] There are many folks in this world who covet the way of life Canadians enjoy in
this country. Of course, a great debt is owed to the Indigenous peoples who play such
an important part in building this way of life, and whose land upon which this building
[2] In a free and democratic society, like ours, there is a legitimate and laudable
expectation that a professional public service will diligently work to support and
implement the legislatively approved agenda of the government of the day. However,
there is an equally legitimate and laudable expectation that our public service will not
work simply to serve a certain political party as opposed to serving all of the citizens
who employ them. As other cases have emphasized, public office means serving the
[3] It is this second expectation that Mr. Bonney failed to meet. In doing so, he
breached the trust that the citizens of British Columbia had placed in him.
[4] Mr. Bonney is before the Court for sentencing. On October 12, 2017, he entered
Brian Ashly Gore BONNEY, from the 16th day of October, 2011, to the 31st
day of December, 2012, inclusive, at or near Vancouver and elsewhere, in
the Province of British Columbia, being a public officer, did, in connection
with the duties of his office, commit a breach of trust, contrary to Section
122 of the Criminal Code.
[5] That charge, contained in Information Number 241884-1, was not sworn until
May 17, 2016, after a lengthy investigation by the RCMP and the engagement of a
special prosecutor.
Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits
fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud
or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a
private person.
[7] Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote this with respect
[8] The Court in Boulanger (above) conceded in 2006 that the elements of s. 122,
surprisingly, remained uncertain. That case required the Court to clarify those elements
so that citizens, police and the courts have a clear idea of what conduct the crime
encompassed.
5. The accused acted with the intention to use his or her public
office for a purpose other than the public good, for example,
for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.
[10] It must also be recognized that the determination of whether someone’s conduct
falls “so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in
the office holder” is often not an easy one. As the Court in Boulanger (above) noted,
“Public officials are therefore made answerable to the public in a way that private actors
may not be. This said perfection has never been the standard for criminal culpability in
this domain; "mistakes" and "errors in judgment" have always been excluded” (para.
52).
[11] Some activities, for instance, using the company computer for a personal use,
may rise to a breach of an employment guideline or contract but not amount to a breach
[12] The Crown alleges that the acts constituting Mr. Bonney’s wrongful conduct were
wide-ranging and occurred over the course of his almost one year employment with
vi. in all of these activities, targeting ethnic groups for the purpose of
garnering their support for Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberal
Party.
[13] Mr. Bonney has conceded, through his plea of guilty, that the elements of the
offence as set out in Boulanger (above) have been met. There was a dispute about
whether Mr. Bonney’s activities under the third subheading fell within the Boulanger
test; however, given the breadth of the other activities, I do not find it necessary to
[14] Mr. Donaldson, on Mr. Bonney’s behalf, submits that the context of Mr. Bonney’s
activities must be considered. He submits that in this case the “line” between pure
partisan politicking and legitimate activities that further an approved government agenda
was often a nebulous one. Mr. Bonney unreservedly admits that that line was crossed in
various instances, but that his moral culpability is on the lower end of the scale given
how closely those employed by government, by caucus, and by political parties work
together at times.
BACKGROUND
[15] Mr. Bonney has worked closely with the B.C. Liberal Party for many years. He is
a former Regional Director and member of the Executive of the BC Liberal Party. He
supported former premier Christy Clark’s bid for the party leadership. He was once
business partners with former Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Harry Bloy.
[17] Those Standards of Conduct set out the ethical boundaries that were to constrain
the activities of government employees. The eight page document points out, among
other things, that “… the honesty and integrity of the BC Public Service demands the
[20] A compelling example of how the often separate interests relating to government
and partisan groups were being emulsified by Mr. Bonney is found in an e-mail (using
non-governmental e-mail addresses) dated April 23, 2012, at 9:17 a.m. from Mr.
Bonney to one of the party’s “community liaisons”, whose activities he was directing.
That e-mail is found at p.65 of Exhibit 1 in this hearing. In it, Mr. Bonney complains that
he has a full-time job with government but is being overwhelmed with e-mails from the
“Minister’s” office, The BC Liberal Party, “caucus”, and individuals associated to the
Premier’s Office.
[21] Prior to that, Mr. Bonney had engaged the services of this particular liaison
indicates that the agreement is “private” and stipulates that the worker is “never to say
R. v. Bonney Page 6
you are working for a government minister, MLA, or government itself, and never say
you are working for a political party”. This begs the obvious question of course. Who
was this person working for? Ultimately, it was found that this worker was being paid by
a company that Mr. Bonney was a principal of. The BC Liberal Party would then
[22] In December 2011, the former Deputy Chief of Staff to the Premier, Kim
the BC Liberal Party, and the provincial Government Caucus to discuss ways to bring
about better coordination of multicultural activities among the three groups. This
Plan (“MCOP”).
[23] This plan was leaked in 2013. Following the leak, the Premier initiated an
investigation headed by John Dyble, Deputy Minister to the Premier. On March 14,
[24] The report, which sets out much of the background relating to the MCOP, notes
that the plan blurred the lines between government and party work. "It was unclear to
[25] This plan, among other things, outlined the benefits for increased sharing of
British Columbians’ information between the Government of British Columbia and the
BC Liberal Party and directs individuals, including Mr. Bonney, to assist in shoring up
R. v. Bonney Page 7
the “ethnic” vote, as well as directing him to create lists of possible Liberal Party
supporters for the upcoming election. He was also told to draft a plan and job
[26] The plan was essentially a strategy for “quick wins” among ethnic communities
and quickly grew, unsurprisingly, into a significant news story. The Georgia Straight
newspaper’s Charlie Smith aptly described it as “a clumsy and somewhat vicious plan to
[27] I do not intend to go into depth regarding the details of this plan (it is found at
pages 73-90 in Exhibit 1). However, it does indicate that the Minister of State for
Multiculturalism (then Harry Bloy) was responsible for the implementation of the plan.
[28] Mr. Bonney enthusiastically went to work on this plan, much of which was
expressly designed to promote only Liberal Party interests, while he was being paid
[29] I was provided several thousand pages of material in this sentencing hearing. A
large number of documents were included in Exhibit 1 and 2, and their purpose is to
delineate the frequency and range of Mr. Bonney’s partisan activities. Many of the
communications that were provided betray the fact that Mr. Bonney knew that at least
some of his conduct and the conduct he was directing others to do, was wrong and he
[30] One of the activities that the liaisons were directed to do was to organize
meetings and “roundtables” with Ministers and MLAs. These meetings were to be with
R. v. Bonney Page 8
“ethnic” community groups and leaders. One of the criteria often requested was that
there had to be something “in it” for the Liberal Party. However, the liaisons were
directed by Mr. Bonney not to mention anything to these groups that could be construed
as “political” in nature.
[31] Despite that direction, there were some community groups that were wary of the
“outreach” that was being directed, in part, by Mr. Bonney. One of the liaisons being
directed by Mr. Bonney held the title of “Honourary Community Liaison for Harry Bloy,
interaction with a community leader who was asking why the Minister was only reaching
out now. This community leader felt that the outreach was clearly political in nature and
he was not happy that they were trying to take advantage of his community.
[32] Mr. Bonney wrote this to the worker, “Stay positive and remember we are doing
this for future generations - for a better BC. If he does not see this, OR, worse, wants a
[33] The only inference to draw from these activities is that Mr. Bonney was only
interested in facilitating access to his Minister (The Honourable John Yap by this time) if
[34] After a less than positive meeting with the Tanzanian community, Mr. Bonney
was directed by the Minister’s office to “not bother with some demographics that will not
likely or absolutely ever support us, e.g. “Homeless people” or “people dependent on
[35] There were times when Mr. Bonney would ask the community liaisons under his
direction to refrain from contacting Party or government officials directly. In that context,
[36] It is difficult to determine just how much time Mr. Bonney was spending on
activities that were outside his legitimate government work. However, the BC Liberal
Party did eventually pay back to the government about half of what Mr. Bonney earned
[37] In all of this, it is clear that Mr. Bonney’s motivations in doing this partisan work
were not to gain any personal financial advantage or to gain a particular benefit for
himself. He simply believed that the Liberal Party with their “free enterprise” agenda was
the only party that could effectively govern and that, essentially, the ends justified the
[38] In August of 2013, Opposition Leader Adrian Dix forwarded a complaint about
several issues relating to these matters to the RCMP. A lengthy investigation followed
involving interviews with folks ranging from the civil service all the way to the Ministerial
level. A Special Prosecutor eventually approved charges under the Election Act. The
[39] I have attempted to outline the substance of the allegations in as brief a manner
as possible, while still acknowledging that the range and breadth of Mr. Bonney’s
activities that fall within the Boulanger test set out above were quite extensive.
R. v. Bonney Page 10
CASES
[40] It is conceded by the counsel before me that the range of sentences available for
breach of trust type sentences vary widely, due to the vastly different kinds of activities
[41] I was provided a number of cases in an effort to assist the Court in placing Mr.
cases such as this one that the public fully understand why the Court has come to the
decision it has and for that reason I am setting out a short summary of some of the
cases that were provided to me. Some cases involved public officials and some
[42] The two accused entered pleas of guilty for breaches of trust. There was a joint
submission with respect to the sentence. Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk were ministerial aides
and were found to be accepting benefits in exchange for delivering insider information in
relation to the sale of BC Rail. The accused were sentenced to conditional sentences of
[43] The accused was convicted of a single count of fraud by a public official. The
accused had written fake parking tickets for out of country license plates in order to
meet a quota set by his employer. The Court found that Mr. Bispo acted upon a
R. v. Bonney Page 11
personal concern that he might lose his job if his legitimate ticket issuance production
[44] The accused attempted to reach an agreement with two opposition councilors to
avoid holding a municipal election in order to ensure that his friend, the mayor, retained
her position.
[45] The Court determined that even though the crime the accused was convicted of
were not one of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code, subjectively, wanting to
[46] The Court concluded, however, that given the circumstances in that case, a jail
sentence was not necessary to meet the principles of sentencing and imposed a
[47] Mr. Corbeil pleaded guilty to fraud on the government and fraud over $5,000. The
accused had suggested to a citizen that they make a $50,000.00 donation to the party
in exchange for a “friendly ear” when it came time to consider a certain land
[48] Noting, in part, that the monies were not obtained for a personal benefit, the
original 15 month jail sentence and restitution order were overturned on appeal. A
R. v. Currie (1994), 24 W.C.B. (2d) 290, 1994 CarswellOnt 2990 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.))
[50] Both accused were long standing members of the Hydro Commission. They used
their office to assist and promote their personal and financial interest in a corporation
which developed "cutting edge" technology for reading meters remotely from a central
location. The accused incorporated a company, in which they were shareholders, for the
purpose of promoting this technology and with a view to benefitting financially from any
[51] The accused were granted a conditional discharge. The accused were long
standing good citizens of the community. The Court found that registering a conviction
was against their best interests. Failing to do so was not contrary to public policy.
[52] Mr. Harvey was the elected Mayor of Vernon. He submitted false expense claims
to the City of Vernon. The total loss to the City resulting from these false claims was
$13,838.60. Mr. Harvey was ordered to pay restitution and was sentenced to a
Conditional Sentence of 12 months, and following that, a Probation Order for a period of
1 year.
R. v. Bonney Page 13
[53] The accused was the only Crown prosecutor in the community in question. He
pleaded guilty to two counts of breach of trust by a public officer, and to one count of
[55] The accused, a senior Licensed Provincial Driving Instructor, was found guilty of
committing fraud or breach of trust in connection with his duties by providing fraudulent
completion Certificates to drivers who did not earn them. Noting the potential harm to
the community of allowing substandard drivers onto the road, the Court sentenced the
[56] Mr. Sona was convicted under the Canada Elections Act for preventing electors
from voting in the election. He was the Communications Director for the local
Conservative Party of Canada candidate. In his role, he became a major and active
participant in a scheme to call some non-supporters of the CPC and direct them to false
polling stations with the intention of preventing them from voting. This scandal became
known as the “robo-calls” incident. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Sona to a period of
[57] The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and upheld the sentence.
R. v. Bonney Page 14
[58] Mr. Trudel was caught up in providing benefits and illegal political funding in an
effort to assist a particular political party to gain a financial edge on other parties. His
participation in various schemes was wide-ranging and purposeful. It was clear that he
was a very influential and wealthy person who was the architect of the schemes
[59] The Court imposed a 15-month jail sentence followed by a 3-year probation order
with conditions.
[60] Mr. Tremblay was the director general of a suburb near Montreal. He admitted to
financing was used to gain an advantage over other candidates. He had extensive
experience in municipal administration. He assisted in drafting the code of ethics for city
employees. He willfully ignored the rules surrounding election funding. He was not just a
city official, he was the main official. He controlled the entire municipal administration.
[61] Ms. Kramp, a police officer, provided confidential police information to her friends
and was charged with breach of trust. Due to the exceptional circumstances, the
sentence for the breach of trust was suspended, and Ms. Kramp was placed on
[62] The accused, a police officer, responded to a fire in progress, and while
simulating involvement with the police investigation, stole various items, and $83. A
Conditional Discharge granted by the trial judge was replaced upon Appeal by a three
[63] Mr. Saini committed a breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office by
[64] While on duty as a prison guard, the accused watched two women engage in
sexual activity on camera monitors. The accused pleaded guilty to breach of trust by
viewing and/or inviting others to view sexual acts between two prisoners.
[65] The Court stated that the offence in this case was serious, and could not be
tolerated. However, the mitigating factors led the Court to conclude that a conditional
[66] The accused was a lawyer who pleaded guilty to fabricating false documents,
committing obstruction of justice, and two frauds. The Court agreed with the sentencing
judge that the crimes were serious, but held that the objectives of denunciation and
deterrence could be met with a sentence served in the community. To that end, the
sentence imposed by the trial judge was replaced with a term of imprisonment of 15
[67] The accused was found to have abused his position as a Senator, by using it to
obtain further financial benefits by claiming false travel expenses, and directing his
research assistant to cut trees on his lot while being paid by the Senate. The benefit
reaped by the accused from his fraud and breach of trust was approximately
[68] The Court found that Mr. Lavigne held a position of privilege endowed with high
public trust, which he breached. The Court found that a conditional sentence would not
be sufficient to meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The accused was
sentenced to six months of imprisonment for Count 1 (fraud), and six months of
[69] The accused was the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and also the President of the
pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud, and one charge of breach of public trust. The
Court of Appeal varied the sentence imposed by the trial judge by increasing the
[70] The Court found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give
sufficient weight to aggravating factors such as the accused’s previous conviction for a
[71] The accused pleaded guilty to committing a breach of trust by stealing money
while acting as a member of the RCMP. The Court took into account the substantial
amount of public funds that were used to investigate the accused, and stated that the
breach of trust victimized the public’s perception of the justice system. The breach of
trust was characterized as serious by the court, and the accused was sentenced to a
[72] That is a short summary of some of the cases I have been referred to and have
CROWN POSITION
[73] The Crown maintains that an appropriate sentence is one of 12-23 months
condemnation of this kind of activity, while also reflecting the fact that the accused is
before the court with no criminal record and a history of positive contributions to the
community.
R. v. Bonney Page 18
DEFENCE POSITION
[74] The Defence says that I should consider suspending the passing of a sentence
and place Mr. Bonney on a period of probation. It is submitted that there are many
extrajudicial sanctions that have been suffered by Mr. Bonney and that an informed
member of the public would appreciate that involvement in any similar activity will bring
consequences that will ensure the required deterrence the Crown is seeking to promote.
ANALYSIS
[75] The determination of a fit sentence is one of the most difficult tasks a judge must
undertake.
[76] It is true that denunciation can be met in ways other than lengthy periods of
of our Court of Appeal in the context of a Crown sentence appeal for a historical sex
[77] I recognize that that statement is likely less impactful and relevant vis a vis
sexual assault conduct now than it might have been historically. Our views relating to
R. v. Bonney Page 19
the seriousness of such conduct have, I think it is fair to say, evolved over time.
However, in my mind, that statement is an apt one in circumstances such as this one.
[78] Mr. Bonney’s case has drawn significant public scrutiny. His reputation, in the
[79] It should be noted that Mr. Bonney’s reputation with respect to the services that
[80] He was presented with both the Diamond and Golden Commemorative Medals
on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for his community work involving children
[81] He has been a Scout leader, an active member of the Rotary Club in Burnaby,
and a founding director of the Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
The esteem with which he was held in the community is clear from the 61 letters of
reference that various members of that community have written on his behalf. They all
attest to his good character and volunteer work. They all know about the charge and
express that the charge does not reflect the individual they have come to know.
[82] Mr. Bonney’s personal circumstances and his lack of any history relating to
[83] All of that, of course, plays against the insidious damage caused by offences
such as these.
[84] Those cynics who disbelieve that government actually works for the benefit of the
people and not themselves are richly rewarded when this type of story emerges. Their
ranks increase. That is a serious problem for society. All citizens have the right to trust
R. v. Bonney Page 20
that our public servants are working for all of us and not just for those who check off the
[85] Peter Aucoin, the late political science professor at Dalhousie University, wrote in
an essay entitled New Public Management and New Public Governance: Finding the
Balance in 2008:
[86] The Crown submits that if Mr. Bonney was asked to do anything illegal (and there
is no concession that he ever was of course) he should have said, ‘No Minister’. The
Defence concedes that is technically true. They submit, in practice, however, it is a very
[87] It is noteworthy that many of the cases involving police officers committing, often
those types of sentences remain the exception in cases involving misconduct in the
political sphere. That seems to be some reflection of just how strong the expectations of
[88] Is it mitigating that Mr. Bonney did not go along with this scheme that was
developed by people up the chain of command for financial benefit, but did so only for
R. v. Bonney Page 21
political benefit? I suppose the answer to that lies in how much importance you place on
the idea of a level and fair playing field when it comes to the democratic process.
[89] I find that the misuse of government power or resources for other purposes, such
[90] That being said I recognize the position that Mr. Bonney was in. He was not the
architect of the scheme being implemented. He has admitted, however, to going well
beyond what he was entitled to do while he was working as a public servant. He did so
[91] I have considered all of these submissions carefully and find that Mr. Bonney’s
case falls somewhere between that of Mr. Briere’s case (above) and Mr. Trudel’s case
(above). On the one hand Mr. Bonney did not benefit financially. On the other hand,
wished his party to succeed in the next election and he enthusiastically, albeit illegally,
CONCLUSION
[92] The case law all seems clear. A sentence in these kinds of cases must express
how important it is to maintain plain boundaries between partisan politicking and public
service. I find that the appropriate sentence here is a jail sentence to be served in the
community by way of a Conditional Sentence Order of nine months duration. The terms
of this sentence take into account, in my mind, the varying interests and factors relating
[93] The Conditional Sentence Order will contain the following terms:
7. For the term of this Order you shall be subject to a curfew at your
residence or its grounds between the hours of 10 p.m. - 6 a.m.
seven days a week except:
8. During those times that you are required by the Order to be in your
residence and are not excused in accordance with the terms of this
Order from being in your residence, you shall facilitate supervision
of compliance with the terms of this Order by presenting yourself to
the door of your residence when required to do so and by
personally answering your phone when it is called.
9. You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any drugs defined
by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which you do not
have a prescription.
R. v. Bonney Page 23
[94] I have considered the imposition of a probation order following this jail sentence
order (according to the Proulx case) is to protect society and to facilitate the offender's
successful reintegration into the community. I find that that is not necessary in this case
[95] There is a $200.00 Victim Surcharge that will be payable within 60 days.
[96] Finally, much has been said in this case regarding the “blurred lines” between the
duties and activities of government, caucus, and party staffers. This is not a case of
confusion in where those lines should be drawn. The conduct that Mr. Bonney is being
sentenced for was clearly, by any standard, “offside” to use Mr. Donaldson’s term.
[97] That being said, efforts have been made recently to examine the effectiveness of
the framework that has been established for ethical conduct within the public service,
most notably the work contained in the Audit of BC Public Service Ethics Management.
The findings and recommendations from that report provide some guidance as to how
[98] In this case there is agreement that while the “plan” being implemented by Mr.
Bonney came from those higher up the chain of command, he was never instructed to
break the law in taking on the task. Ultimately, we reasonably expect all citizens,
including, and especially, public servants, to choose legal paths in giving effect to job
instructions. Mr. Bonney made certain choices on his own that have led him to this
juncture in his life. I sincerely hope that he will find some redemption by getting back to
the commendable community work he has been involved in. The message to be passed
on to other public servants in similar situations is that while there may be unfair and
R. v. Bonney Page 24
pale in comparison to the ones being experienced by Mr. Bonney right now.
_____________________________