Category: Women

Posted on

Boulachanis: Murderer, Trafficker And Escapee Sent To Women’s Prison

It’s bad enough that male convicts can simply game the system to ensure they’re placed with women. It seems that even being a convicted murderer, a narcotics trafficker, or having a history of escaping isn’t necessarily enough to prevent it. Nor are allegations of sexual assault while in custody. Regardless of circumstances, women simply don’t have rights to assert.

This covers John Boulachanis, who now goes by Jamie Boulachanis. He had previously been involved in drug trafficking, and murdered an accomplice he feared would turn him in.

Bagnald, Blackplume and Patterson were looked at previously.

In a convoluted decision, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court allowed him to be transferred, at least until the issue was finally worked out. However, the Federal Court of Appeal stayed that decision.

Boulachanis Is Murderer With Previous Escape

[17] Upon her return to Canada, Ms. Boulachanis was charged with first‑degree murder and detained in provincial custody. In 2013, she managed to escape while being transported in a prison van, but was caught soon after. After going through a metal detector, she handed over saw blades, handcuff keys and part of a screwdriver hidden in her body cavities. In 2015, a search of her cell turned up a variety of objects and instruments that could be used to escape, including braided ropes, handmade handcuffs and tools. She was also convicted of obstructing justice for inducing witnesses to lie during her murder trial.

From Justice Grammond’s own reasons, Boulachanis had escaped custody previously, and had the tools to do so another time. He was still allowed to be in a women’s jail. Additionally, he had fled the country, and was only apprehended when he returned.

According to the Federal Court, Boulachanis lived under false identities in Greece, the United States, and elsewhere in Canada. Another reason to view him as a security risk.

Tortured Logic Coming From Federal Court

[30] To determine whether Ms. Boulachanis presented a strong prima facie case, it can be helpful to begin by reviewing the positions of the parties. Ms. Boulachanis’s position is straightforward: keeping her in a men’s institution is discriminatory, and in addition, this violates the interim policy. Since she is legally a woman, she has the strict right to be accommodated in a women’s institution.

[31] On the contrary, the Attorney General’s argument is based on the exception that appears in the interim policy. He argues that Ms. Boulachanis’s case, because of her high risk of escape, raises “overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved.” The decision to keep Ms. Boulachanis in a men’s institution would be the result of weighing her right to equality against the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [the CCRA], namely those regarding public safety. Citing the decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 SCR 395 [Doré], the Attorney General argues that the outcome of this weighing exercise was reasonable.

[35] In our society, certain facilities or areas are often reserved for men or for women. Reconciling these deeply entrenched practices with the right to equality of trans people often raises challenges. Nevertheless, there is prima facie discrimination when a trans person is forced to use facilities reserved for people of their anatomical sex, when they do not correspond to their gender identity or expression: see, for example, Sheridan and Kavanagh. Such an approach is consistent with a perspective based on individual autonomy in gender identity and expression.

[36] Thus, Ms. Boulachanis was subject to prima facie discrimination because of her gender identity or expression, given that she was denied a transfer to a women’s institution, even though that is what corresponds to her current gender identity and expression and the designation of sex that now appears on her act of birth. That was also the conclusion of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Kavanagh, at paragraph 141. The interim policy the Service adopted in December 2017 was also based on the idea that respecting the right to equality of trans people required that their choice to be in a men or women’s institution be respected.

[37] Ms. Boulachanis was also subject to prima facie discrimination from another perspective. While all inmates undergo a risk assessment to determine their security classification, it is only in the case of trans women inmates that the Service use this assessment to deny them the possibility of being accommodated in a women’s institution. A cisgender woman who presented just as great a risk as Ms. Boulachanis would automatically be sent to a women’s institution. That is another reason for a finding of prima facie discrimination.

[40] In this case, the Attorney General is not claiming that the simple presence of trans women in women’s institutions would cause undue hardship. It appears that the adoption of the interim policy, which clearly provides for this presence, implicitly set aside the arguments that, more than fifteen years ago, led to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s finding in Kavanagh, at paragraphs 155–160.

[41] What the Attorney General is arguing is that accommodating trans women inmates in a women’s institution must be subject to an assessment of the level of risk to health and safety. To justify this condition that would be applied only to trans women inmates, the Attorney General strongly insists on the fact that men and women’s institutions do not meet the same security requirements. In particular, the evidence clearly shows that the construction standards are different and that the use of firearms to ensure safety is prohibited in all women’s institutions, whereas it is allowed in men’s institutions, depending on their security level. These differences in the design and operation of the two categories of institution apparently reflect the fact that men are, in general, more dangerous than women, that the criminal behaviour of men and women is different, and that women may benefit from a different correctional approach based on their specific needs. In this regard, the policy adopted by the Service is largely inspired by the report of Justice Louise Arbour concerning the riot that occurred at the Kingston women’s prison in 1994 (Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996).

[42] I have no difficulty accepting the fact that it is appropriate to separate men and women in a correctional environment and that it is appropriate to implement less strict security measures in response to the different situation of women. But that is not the issue. The real issue is to determine whether, in a context where it is justified to keep separate institutions for men and women, Ms. Boulachanis should be treated as a man or as a woman.

[45] I find it hard to believe that physical capability is so important in assessing the risk posed by an inmate that, for that reason alone, trans women inmates must be treated as men. Furthermore, I note that the assessment to determine Ms. Boulachanis’s security classification makes no mention of her physical capabilities.

[48] In the absence of a reliable scientific basis, we are reduced to speculation, which is fertile ground for discriminatory prejudice. At the hearing, the Attorney General made certain hypotheses about the physical and psychological effects of the various phases of the sex reassignment process on risk and dangerousness. I have serious doubts about the validity of such hypotheses. Moreover, we should also consider the social effects of this process, in particular on the ability to maintain relationships with potential accomplices or criminal networks.

It’s worth pointing out that the Attorney General isn’t challenging the policy in any way. In other words, there’s no issue in principle with men being in women’s prisons. It’s only that this specific one cause security risks.

The Judge doesn’t think that just because Boulachanis is a man, that he should be treated as such.

Another noteworthy point is that there appears to be no concern for the well being of the female inmates at the prison.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

August 9, 1997: John Boulachanis is charged with first degree murder of Robert Tanguay.

1998 to 2011: Boulachanis lives under various assumed names, and in other countries. He is eventually arrested after returning to Canada.

September 2016: Over several days, a Jordan Application is argued. The Defendant says that his rights have been violated due to the extensive delays in prosecuting him.

October 6th, 2016: The Quebec Court denies the Jordan Application to stay the case.

October 27th, 2016: Quebec Superior Court permitted the testimony of a certain witness to be admitted at Trial, but with limiting instructions to be issued when the time came.

November 29th, 2016: The Quebec Court refuses a request to get certain prosecution statements removed from the record.

December 17th, 2016: Boulachanis is convicted, receives automatic life sentence.

January 20th, 2017: Quebec Court of Appeal agrees to expedite a challenge to the sentence.

January, 2019: Now serving a life sentence, Boulachanis begins taking synthetic hormones.

April 11th, 2019: Boulachanis has a hearing Federal Court. The prison staff refused his request to be transferred to a female prison. They do however refer to him as “Jamie”.

April 15th, 2019: Federal Court orders that Boulachanis can be transferred to a women’s prison for the time being.

April 23rd, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal hears argument that Boulachanis should stay where he is, and that female prisons are not designed to hold someone like him.

April 24th, 2019: Federal Court of Appeal stays the transfer pending final determination of the original Application.

January 8th, 2020: Quebec Court of Appeal rejects an Appeal of 2016 decision that refused the Jordan Application.

January 11th 2021: Boulachanis is transferred to Joliette Women’s Institution. Despite the FCA overturning Justice Grammond’s ruling, he’s in with women. Presumably, it was settled internally.

December 16th, 2021: Supreme Court of Canada grants an extension of time to file material for an Application for Leave to Appeal, but denies the Application itself. This was over the order which refused to stay his case for delay.

September 25th, 2024: CSC conducted a reassessment of his security clearance, which was currently at a “moderate” level.

The case didn’t end in 2021. Boulachanis filed a Habeas Corpus Application, which was refused. His security classification was raised, due to an incident of him trafficking morphine within the prison. As a result, he risked being sent back to a men’s prison.

Ultimately, the Court refused to get involved in the case, stating they were not the “arbiters of the institutional day-to-day”.

In any event, he never had any business being locked up with women, regardless of the other security risks he posed.

COURT DECISIONS (TRANSFER):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc456/2019fc456.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2019/2019fca100/2019fca100.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2025/2025qccs1049/2025qccs1049.html

COURT DECISIONS (MURDER CASE):
(1) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6867/2016qccs6867.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6876/2016qccs6876.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6877/2016qccs6877.html
(4) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2016/2016qccs6879/2016qccs6879.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2017/2017qcca66/2017qcca66.html
(6) https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qcca/doc/2020/2020qcca4/2020qcca4.html
(7) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2021/2021canlii129761/2021canlii129761.html

Posted on

Haedyn Patterson: How This “Woman” Acted While In Custody

Let’s look at an older case that’s still applicable today. Haedyn-Khris Racquel Beaumann, (or Patterson?) whose real name is Kevin David Patterson, fled to British Columbia after committing murder back in 2014. To avoid extradition to Washington State, he filed endless legal challenges. Eventually, he resorted to playing the “transgender” card, in order to further delay.

While the case was (more broadly) covered over the years, reporting didn’t really address the specific allegations of how Patterson acted in custody. He managed to get transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, or ACCW. It’s shocking what the staff tolerated, and how little the safety of the women trapped with him mattered.

Also see Bagnald and Blackplume for some of the other psychos that are locked up.

Female Prison To Be Staffed By Female Guards

9. As a general matter, females are housed separately from men in British Columbia’s correctional system. As is explicitly acknowledged by BC Corrections in a document entitled “Statement of Philosophy – Correctional Service for Women,” female inmates tend to have backgrounds, needs, and safety concerns that are distinct from male inmates. Notably, many female inmates have historically suffered abuse at the hands of men, and as a result of this trauma are more vulnerable and susceptible to ongoing and future trauma and abuse.

34. In accordance with the Cross Gender Staffing Policy, all front-line correctional officers at ACCW are female. These officers are responsible for supervising the inmate population on the units, doing visual safety checks of inmates in all areas of the centre, including individual cells, performing physical searches, taking escorts into the community, facilitating programs, etc. The few male staff members at ACCW are either supervisors or managers.

35. The majority of the inmates at ACCW have suffered from violence or other forms of abuse by men, tend to be marginalized, are more likely to be easily controlled or overpowered by men, and have high levels of trauma.

36. There are many challenges to managing the inmate population at ACCW. Ensuring the safety and security of staff and inmates in the context of a correctional centre is a complex balancing act. One of the biggest challenges staff face is managing the interaction among inmates to prevent or minimize tensions and conflict among them, and to protect vulnerable inmates from being taken advantage of.

Then, there’s this nonsense:

“51. Transgender inmates at SPSC are welcome to wear wigs or prosthetics in accordance with their gender expression, though BC Corrections does not supply these items. All inmates at SPSC must, however, wear the same outer clothing for safety and security reasons.”

The Response to the Petition is interesting. It’s stated quite plainly that with the odd exception in management, the staff is female. This is due largely to trauma and violence inmates have suffered. And it’s all perfectly reasonable.

However, this logic completely falls by the wayside when it’s explained that male prisoners can simply call themselves women and be transferred there. Guards at least are subjected to a high level of background checks, whereas anyone can be an inmate.

Patterson got himself transferred to the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Surrey, B.C. But because of how he acted, he was eventually sent back. He challenged the decision.

ACCW admits that they had at least 15 transgender prisoners between 2016 and 2019. So, this isn’t a one-off, but is a regular concern. But what about the women there?

Alouette Explains Reasons For Sending Patterson Back

In response to Patterson’s Petition, the prison filed a formal reply. It outlined in detail the problems that they had with him.

59. In late 2017 (i.e. after three years in custody), while incarcerated at SPSC, the petitioner informed BC Corrections for the first time that she identifies as female. The petitioner was transferred from SPSC to ACCW on September 12, 2018.

60. Prior to her transfer to ACCW, the petitioner was required to sign a “Behavioural Expectations Contract”. These are sometimes used where an inmate has demonstrated negative behaviour and BC Corrections staff determine a behavioural expectations contract may assist in correcting that behaviour. The terms of the contract ensure inmates have a clear understanding of what is expected of them and to provide a clear behavioural plan for the inmate to follow.

64. During her stay at ACCW, Ms. Bryson worked closely with the petitioner to manage her behavioural issues and to support her compliance with the behavioural expectations at ACCW, as set out in her Behavioural Expectations Contract. Nevertheless, the petitioner’s behaviour proved extremely difficult to manage.

65. Throughout her time at ACCW, and despite Ms. Bryson’s efforts to work with the petitioner, the petitioner routinely engaged in disruptive behaviour that breached ACCW’s rules. These behaviours ranged from horseplay, prohibited intimate relationships with other inmates, disobeying staff direction, and behaving in an abusive manner toward others. By the time that she was transferred back to SPSC, there were 288 negative entries in her C-Log related to her time at ACCW.

66. In addition to these more routine examples of negative behaviour, there were four serious incidents involving the petitioner during her time at ACCW. These incidents, which took place on January 30, April 3, July 24 and August 14, 2019, demonstrated a pattern of repeated and significant misbehaviour that put the safety and security of the petitioner, ACCW staff, and other inmates at risk.

80. On August 14, 2019, Dr. Nader Sharifi, Medical Director of Correctional Health Services emailed ACCW’s Warden, Lisa Martin. Dr. Sharifi indicated that the petitioner had not been adhering to her transcare medication and that felt obligated to inform Ms. Martin of that fact as, in his view, it could endanger the safety at ACCW and its operations.

84. A Code Yellow was called and additional responding staff attended the scene. The petitioner was non-compliant and combative with staff. It eventually took eight staff members, including staff who are members of the Emergency Response Team, to restrain the petitioner with a “wrap” and move her to a harm reduction cell.

85. As a result of the petitioner’s combative behaviour on August 14, 2019, three staff members submitted Worker’s Compensation Claims for various injuries sustained during the code response including scratches, swelling, and injuries to the neck, knees, and back.

It’s difficult to believe that this went on. Prison staff knew in advance that Patterson was a serious problem. They also noted that “identifying as a woman” only set in after approximately 3 years in custody. And of course, he was wanted in the United States for first degree murder.

Not only was he transferred to ACCW, but allowed to remain there in spite of being a constant nuisance, menace, and danger to the women.

Patterson Threatened To Kill Staff, Other Inmates At ACCW

70. This incident was particularly concerning to ACCW staff. As noted above, the petitioner is facing extradition to the United States on a charge of first degree murder. One way to defeat an extradition proceeding is to be charged in Canada with a crime of equal or greater severity. Given this context, the petitioner’s comments “don’t forget I have nothing to lose” were taken very seriously.

Notwithstanding that he never should have been at ACCW to begin with, it’s mind boggling that he was allowed to remain for so long.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 17th, 2014: Patterson commits murder and soon flees to Canada.

November 20th, 2014: The U.S. officially requested Patterson be extradited.

December 11th, 2014: The Minister of Justice authorized the extradition.

February 11th, 2015: British Columbia Supreme Court rejected Patterson’s application for bail. He had requested temporary release while extradition was being sorted out.

May 6th, 2015: At an extradition hearing, Justice gives oral reasons for committing Patterson into custody until the American authorities can get him.

July 20th, 2015: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects a request to review the bail findings from earlier in the year. Patterson is to stay in custody.

October 17th, 2015: Minister of Justice orders unconditional surrender of Patterson.

February 3rd, 2017: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Appeal from the B.C. Supreme Court, which would have forced Patterson’s extradition to the U.S. The Court also refused an Application to consider new evidence.

Late 2017: Although no exact date is given, Patterson informs prison staff for the first time that he identifies as a woman.

March 15th, 2018: Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear an Appeal from the February 2017 decision of the BCCA.

September 12th, 2018: Patterson is transferred to ACCW.

December 7th, 2018: British Columbia Court of Appeal throws out Patterson’s Appeal.

July 11th, 2019: Supreme Court of Canada granted an extension of time to serve and file the Application for Leave, to challenge the December 2018 ruling. However, the Application itself was dismissed.

January 14th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal rejects yet another request for interim release, pending extradition.

April 2nd, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed an Application by the Attorney General of Canada to have Patterson declared a “vexatious litigant”. However, it was noted that any further misuse of the Court may change their minds.

April 30th, 2020: British Columbia Court of Appeal dismisses Patterson’s Appeal of the January 24th, 2019 decision.

After exhausting all legal options in B.C., Patterson was eventually extradited. He was found guilty of murder.

One has to assume that the prison staff don’t want to put up with people like this. Patterson wasn’t even delusional, he was just gaming the system to avoid extradition for murder. To play devil’s advocate, perhaps the guards were trying to put together an extensive paper trail.

This sort of policy puts staff and prisoners alike in danger. Even if male inmates don’t injure or kill anyone, it’s still an intrusion that no one wants.

It’s apparently common practice to supply prisoners with synthetic hormones while they’re locked up. Not only to women have to contend with male prisoners, but they’re drugged up at the same time. It’s just asking for trouble.

There’s also the issue of all the expenses involved here. Patterson racked up huge legal bills, which taxpayers are presumably on the hook for.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Patterson Petition
(2) Patterson Response To Petition
(3) Patterson Notice Of Hearing

Posted on

“Lucy” Blackplume: Declared A Dangerous Offender By ABCA In 2021

In early 2021, the Court of Appeal for Alberta overturned a Provincial Court ruling which spared a man an indeterminate sentence. Although this case is a few years old, it’s worth reminding people what some men are capable of, all while masquerading as women.

The perpetrator is Josiah Jerome Blackplume, who now goes by the name Lucy Blackplume.

It’s implied that the Gladue-Ipeelee principles are what kept Blackplume (at least in part) from initially being declared a dangerous offender. However, the Court of Appeal seems to disagree on the extent.

[15] The sentencing judge reviewed Gladue-Ipeelee sentencing principles for Indigenous offenders, and noted the link between residential schools and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in corrections. Correctional institutions, in the sentencing judge’s view, have failed to develop humane secure housing and treatment for Indigenous and mentally ill offenders. Citing the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in R v CPS, 2006 SKCA 78 for its factual similarities, the sentencing judge endorsed the perspective that offenders such as Ms Blackplume are more appropriately treated from a mental health rather than correctional perspective. Referring to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ewert v Canada, 2018 SCC 30, she observed that psychological risk assessment tools may be culturally biased when evaluating Indigenous offenders. In Ewert (at paras 59-60), the Court stated that correctional institutions must provide programs that are culturally responsive to the needs and circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

Here’s the short version: following his latest convictions, the Crown sought to have Blackplume declared a dangerous offender. The Provincial Court Judge refused, despite meeting the criteria, and his extensive history of violence. He was instead given a 10 year sentence. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, issuing an indeterminate one instead.

His criminal record includes the following:

  • October 24th, 2008 (conviction date): Aggravated Sexual Assault on a Minor
  • May 10th, 2012: Attempted Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • May 23th, 2012: Sexual Assault
  • October 6, 2014 (conviction date): Fraud over $5,000, receiving benefits while incarcerated
  • February 12th, 2015: Sexual Assault with a Weapon
  • February 12th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm
  • August 14th, 2015: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Keep in mind, both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Alberta Court of Appeal will continuously refer to this person as a “woman”. This is beyond insulting.

[26] Ms. Blackplumes’s first conviction was recorded in Youth Court on October 24, 2008. As a 17-year old, she (Josiah) committed an aggravated sexual assault on a three-year-old girl. Intoxicated and walking to her girlfriend’s home in Standoff, Josiah noticed an open door in the victim’s home. Josiah entered and saw the victim on a living room couch. She approached and penetrated the child’s vagina with an index finger and the penis, also striking the child three times on the face with the back of the hand. The child’s aunt returned and Josiah fled out the front door. The young girl was naked, crying and bleeding from the vaginal area. Ms. Blackplume pled guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 18 months’ Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and 18 months’ conditional supervision.

[30] Ms. Blackplume has almost a 12-year history of life in these institutions: Calgary Young Offender Centre (CYOC), Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Calgary Remand Centre (CRC), Edmonton Remand Centre (ERC), Saskatoon Corrections Centre (SCC), Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Bowden Institution, Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre (SAFPC) and Regional Psychiatric Centre. Her time in these institutions is notable for many periods of segregation, isolation or observation, most often in response to Ms. Blackplume’s anxiety, depressed mood or suicidal ideation, gestures, threats or attempts, but also when she has been assaultive or sexually inappropriate with other inmates, or found trafficking, sometimes with her own stockpiled medications.

[31] On her Youth Court IRCS sentence, she (Josiah) was discharged early from Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, due to repeated inappropriate contact with female patients, in what was seen to be grooming behaviour.

The ruling itself is extremely graphic, and states in considerable detail the crimes Blackplume has both been convicted of, and otherwise suspected of.

At 17 years old, Blackplume beat and raped his girlfriend’s toddler child.

He has committed other sexual assaults, and has used weapons in doing so.

There are also references to drug trafficking, in the form of selling his medications.

While in prison, Blackplume was psychologically evaluated. The reports make it pretty clear that he will never be an asset to society, and will always be a danger.

  • Static encephalopathy, Ms. Blackplume’s brain damage, never changes, is a lifelong condition.
  • For her safety and the safety of others, Ms. Blackplume requires an external adult brain supervising her 24 hours a day for the rest of her life.
  • She does not have the ability to rely on past experience to guide future choices.
  • Ms. Blackplume appears to be much higher functioning than she is.
  • Cognitive Behavioural Therapy will not benefit Ms. Blackplume (despite all indications that she may have understood the programming).
  • Play therapy, pet therapy and music therapy can be used to fill her days and therefore manage her behaviour.
  • She is incapable of developing insight or empathy.
  • She is not able to understand that the act of forced sex on an unwilling or uncooperative person is wrong.
  • She is not able to understand that sex with minors is wrong.
  • With careful social scripting to participate in structured social outings, such as going fishing, working on fence posts on a farm, or playing the guitar with another person, she would be very successful.
  • The Wellspring program, although designed for lower functioning participants, is cognitive behavioural therapy and, therefore, will not work for Ms. Blackplume.
  • Pet, play and music therapy are not available in a secure hospital setting due to a lack of funding.

While the evaluations (accurately) point out the many defects and dysfunctions that Blackplume has, there is the elephant in the room: he’s a man, but thinks he’s a woman. It would be interesting to know to what degree these synthetic “hormones” have messed with his cognitive function.

Much of the Court submissions hinged on whether it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (a Section 12 Charter violation) to indefinitely lock someone up with such limited intellect. Ultimately though, the Court of Appeal did just that.

In an odd twist, the court decisions don’t state that Blackplume has expressed any desire to go to a women’s prison. And all for the best, anyway.

If he really is mentally deficient to the point that he doesn’t understand that forcing sex on unwilling people (especially children) is wrong, then euthanasia probably is the best option for everyone.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2019/2019abpc273/2019abpc273.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca2/2021abca2.html

Posted on

Katherine Ethyl Bagnald: Transferred To Women’s Prison Despite Sexual Assault Allegation

Something that largely went ignored by the media is the case of an inmate named Katherine Ethyl Bagnald. He is a 22 year old man who was sentenced to prison time for multiple robberies, and wants to be sent to a women’s jail.

Despite his age, Bagnald already has a serious criminal record. When Corrections Canada refused to put Bagnald in with women — at least for the time being — he sued the Federal Government.

His intake assessment is disturbing, to put it mildly.

  • His first arrest (at 16) was for pulling a knife on his mother’s boyfriend.
  • He was arrested for threatening to kill his (then) girlfriend’s father.
  • He was previously in a fight at the CNSCF.
  • He was on probation when he committed these 3 robberies.
  • He claimed to have a knife when robbing these 3 gas stations.
  • He was heavily into drugs and alcohol as a minor (so he claims).
  • He was involved in prostitution as a minor (so he claims).

It’s baffling to think that putting this mentally ill biological male with female inmates wouldn’t lead to serious problems. What’s more unsettling is that the responding lawyers don’t cite this danger as the primary reason to refuse him.

Thanks to Ottawa’s new rules on “diverse gender offenders“, men can simply declare that they are women, and are allowed to be transferred. There’s little (if any) consideration for the safety and comfort of the women involved.

Bagnald Accused Of Sexually Assaulting FEMALE Inmate

Now we get to the uglier part. It’s more than just the issue of putting a male inmate in a female prison. Bagnald is also under investigation for sexual assault of another inmate. Although some details are included in these papers, they won’t be published here.

One of the reasons Bagnald cites in being allowed to go to a women’s prison is that the incident had only led to an internal investigations by the jail, and not formal criminal charges. Of course, that may very well change. He also claims the encounter was consensual.

While Bagnald is suing to force the jail to put him at a women’s federal penitentiary, it turns out that was unnecessary. He was later voluntarily transferred, despite the ongoing complaint. Corrections couldn’t be bothered to at least fight the case.

Correction: He was in fact later charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the criminal code. It occurred on September 12th, 2024. However, he wasn’t charged until May 2025.

***Author’s note: because of the publication ban of portions of the evidence, and on identifying the victim, the actual documents will not be published.***

Bagnald Objected To Portions Of Confidentiality Request

As is common in cases of sexual assault, and internal investigative matters, confidentiality requests are made. Bagnald opposed it, however, including sealing information that would have protected the identity of his victim.

Ultimately, the Court did agree to restrict some information.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

September 12th, 2025: Bagnald, while in custody on robbery charges, sexually assaults a female inmate at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. However, he would not be charged with this for several months.

January 3rd, 2025: Bagnald receives a Federal (over 2 year) sentence for 3 counts of robbery and breach of probation. He is incarcerated with men, given that he is one.

January 10th, 2025: Bagnald is notified that he would be sent to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) at Springhill Institution, which is a men’s prison. This is the order that he tries to have set aside, and there is just 30 days to commence proceedings. That would be February 9th.

January 14th, 2025: Bagnald is transferred to the RRC.

February 25th, 2025: Bagnald files a Motion for an extension of Time in Federal Court. As the deadline to challenge the order has lapsed, he needs to convince the Court that he should be allowed to argue it anyway.

February 28th, 2025: Bagnald brings another Motion, this one for an order to compel Corrections Canada to transfer him to a women’s prison.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General responds, objecting to the Motion to compel Bagnald’s transfer to a women’s prison. However, it’s based primarily on procedural grounds, i.e. Statute of Limitations, and not the fact that he would be a danger to the women locked up.

March 3rd, 2025: The Attorney General also responds to the Motion for the extension of time.

March 18th, 2025: The Attorney General brings a Motion to seek (or protect) certain information from being made publicly available. While the assessment was still ongoing, it’s alleged that Bagnald sexually assaulted a female inmate, a real woman. Although no criminal charges had been filed yet, the jail still had to investigate it. There is a PUBLIC version available with redactions, but only the Court has access to the full version.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald formally objected to most of the redactions sought by the government.

March 20th, 2025: Bagnald files reply submissions in support of getting transferred.

March 24th, 2025: Federal Court agreed to withhold portions of the evidence from public view, citing the need for privacy.

March 25th, 2025: Bagnald files an Application for Judicial Review, trying to force Corrections Canada to let him be transferred to a women’s prison.

April 9th, 2025: Bagnald files an amended Application.

May 14th, 2025: Bagnald is finally charged with sexual assault. The Crown elects to proceed “by indictment”, the more serious option. By this time, he’s already at the Nova Institute for Women, a federal penitentiary.

June 17th, 2025: A publication ban is ordered to protect the sexual assault victim, and witnesses who may be involved in the case.

June 19th, 2025: The Government brings forward a Motion to Strike for the Federal case. The basis is that by now, Bagnald has already been transferred to a women’s prison, and hence, the Application is moot.

June 30th, 2025: Bagnald responds to the Motion to Strike. While he as already been moved, he wants to proceed anyway, in order to create a precedent that can be used later.

Note: All of the dates listed can be confirmed by searching the respective cases on the Federal Court website. It keeps a detailed listing of all significant events.

There’s nothing “progressive” or “enlightened” about implementing these sorts of policies. Supporters simply hate women, and are indifferent (at best) to the harm that they cause.

MOTION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME (25-T-23):
(1) Bagnald Risk Assessment Corrections Canada (January, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Gender Diverse Inmate Directives
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Extend Time (February, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Letter To Court Requesting Urgency (February, 2025)
(5) Bagnald Motion Record Requiring Transfer (February, 2025)
(6) Bagnald Responding Motion Record Extension Of Time (March, 2025)
(7) Bagnald PUBLIC Responding Motion Record Transfer (March, 2025)
(8) Bagnald Written Submissions Transfer (March, 2025)
(9) Bagnald Cost Agreement (March, 2025)
(10) Bagnald – Decision Granting Extension Of Time To File Application (March, 2025)

APPLICATION TO REVIEW DECISION (T-982-25):
(1) Bagnald Notice Of Application (March, 2025)
(2) Bagnald Amended Notice Of Application (April, 2025)
(3) Bagnald Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)
(4) Bagnald Responding Motion Record To Strike (June, 2025)

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress