A Greater Sudbury Police officer has been granted an absolute discharge by a Sudbury judge after he pleaded guilty to assault for breaking a man’s face during a 2023 arrest.
Greater Sudbury Police Const. Jean-Yves Lacasse, 29, was charged on June 12, 2024 with assault causing bodily harm by the Special Investigations Unit, for an arrest that occurred Dec. 8., 2023.
Lacasse has been an officer with GSPS since 2019.
Whatever discipline he may be subjected to by Greater Sudbury Police Service will be at the discretion of Police Chief Sara Cunningham.
The case was actually a bit difficult to locate for media and the public. While in the court system, both on the court docket and in the Service Ontario registration, Lacasse’s name was spelled “Lacassse” with three ‘s’.
The charge relates to a police technique known as “grounding” wherein a police officer takes a suspect to the ground, often for the purpose of controlling them or disarming them. There must be reasonable grounds to do so, however and it must be proportionate to the accused's actions, states the Police Services Act.
According to Nicolas de Montigny, the Toronto-based assistant Crown attorney enlisted to avoid conflict of interest with the local Crown office, the conduct in question was “neither reasonable nor proportionate and it was excessive.” However, that did not mean it would come with sentencing recommendations.
“The parties have discussed and agreed to propose a joint submission before your honor, which is an absolute discharge,” said de Montigny.
Some observers in the court laughed out loud when the Crown and defence proposed an absolute discharge. One observer later told Sudbury.com “If I did that, I’d be facing six months.”
The event that led to the charges occurred in 2023, when officers were called to the scene of a possible domestic disturbance in a residence. A woman called and said her partner, whose name is protected under initials ‘JC’ was “acting erratically, screaming and yelling, and that he had broken down their bedroom door.
Lacasse and another officer arrived on scene, and after investigation, found reasonable grounds to arrest JC for mischief. “There is no issue with the legality of the arrest,” said de Montingy.
De Montigny read the facts of the case into the record as part of the plea agreement.
He said that when Lacasse and his partner arrived at the residence, JC was in bed. One officer took the right arm and Lacasse took JC’s left arm.
JC was handcuffed behind his back and escorted to the front foyer area of the home. While the other officer went in search of clothing for JC, who was clad only in underwear, Lacasse waited with JC.
“While with Police Const. Lacasse, JC shouted that he was not going to jail and told Police Const. Lacasse not to touch him and get his hands off him,” said de Montingy. “During the interaction, JC rapidly pulled his arm away from Const. Lacasse, and in response, Const. Lacasse grounded JC onto the foyer’s tile floor.”
De Montigny said at no point did the officers “strike, punch or kick,” the accused.
JC was later diagnosed with left-side fractures of the maxillary sinus orbit and zygomatic arch.
Left-sided fractures of the maxillary sinus orbit and zygomatic arch, collectively known as zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures, are “common facial injuries resulting from direct trauma to the cheek,” said the National Library of Medicine. These fractures can disrupt multiple structures in the midface, including the zygoma, maxilla, and orbit.
The Crown stated that in his victim impact statement (not read to the court), JC noted that he still suffers pain from the injuries.
Lacasse went through a judicial pre-trial (JPT) ahead of his plea on May 27, a meeting between the Crown, justice, defence and the accused. From this, a joint submission to Justice Pierre Bradley was created.
Lacasse was charged with assault causing bodily harm but pleaded guilty to “lesser included charge” of assault, said his attorney, Joanne Mulcahy, who argued Lacasse has no criminal record, this was first offence and he did not intend to cause harm.
As far as the sentencing goes, the fact that the incident took place in JC’s home, in front of his children was discussed, as well as Lacasse’s role as a police officer.
De Montigny told the court that as Lacasse is in a position of trust and authority and “this offense involves a breach of that trust.”
“It was an offence committed while on duty against an individual who was arrested, a person who was in the officer's custody and inherently vulnerable; when a police officer uses force that is unjustified, that constitutes a violation of the trust,” he said.
However, the fact that Lacasse pleaded guilty worked in his favour.
“It does avoid the need for what would have ended up being a fairly lengthy trial involving the testimony of youth witnesses and the risks, not only the risk associated with the trial in terms of uncertainty, but the emotional costs to victims and witnesses when testifying,” said the Crown.
However, he said Lacasse did have an obligation to ensure the safety of the community, and in particular to those in their custody.
But then came dozens of letters from other GSPS officers, those who worked with Lacasse and called him an “exemplary” officer, said defence attorney Mulcahy.
“In his career as a police officer, he has saved a number of lives, this matter is completely out of character,” she said, before noting the second aspect for consideration in sentencing: is the sentence in the public interest?
“Clearly, what is being sought here is in the public interest; it deals with deterrence, considered by the fact that there will be a finding of guilt here,” said Mulcahy. “The gravity of the offense is not like some of the matters before you, your honour, so the public would be satisfied with this resolution. He made an error in judgment”
She said that when accounting for both the nature of the offence, and the offender himself, it “meets the test with respect to a discharge.”
Mulcahy said that Lacasse has also suffered with the case “hanging over his head for a year and a half” and has continued to serve the community in good stead.
In terms of the mitigating factor, Mulcahy noted that he is a young, married man and father to one child.
“He comes from a large family, and he grew up committed to public service, which he's continued in his career of choice,” she said. “Off duty, he spends a great deal of time providing support to his elderly mother and his numerous siblings.”
She said he has accomplished a great deal even for a young officer.
“You'll see before you, your honour, a number of letters of recognition, positive commendations, positive evaluations as well as letters provided by his fellow officers and they describe him as an exemplary employee, no prior disciplinary history,” Mulcahy said. “They describe him as someone who is respectful, courageous, dedicated, kind, hearted, compassionate, caring, dependable, devoted, giving exceptional service to the community, integrity, someone with a big heart, an asset to the Police Service and the community.”
This response also elicited groans from the observers.
Mulcahy continued, telling the judge this is a matter of “low moral culpability for a momentary lapse of judgment for which he's taking responsibility.”
“There's clearly no concern about re-offense, and just going through the process has been very aggravating to him,” she said. “This is a case without aggravating factors: there's no weapon used, there's no prolonged assault, there's no collusion, there's no kicking or punching and we don't have falsified notes or reports or cover up. There's no collusion with the other officers. There's no racial motive. There's no malicious conduct.”
Justice Bradley accepted the joint submission. “I think under the circumstances, an absolute discharge is reasonable. It would not be contrary to the public interest, nor would bring administration of justice.”
As far as next steps for Lacasse, GSPS Professional Standards Bureau Superintendent Marc Brunette told Sudbury.com that there will be an internal investigation into the matter, and then a “Section 34” report created and given to the chief.
A Section 34 report, said Brunette, will focus on procedures, equipment and training surrounding the event and determine changes or modernization required, “if any” said Brunette.
“It’s also an opportunity to review the conduct of the officer when it comes to, for example, discipline,” said Brunette. In this case, the report will reflect discreditable conduct, said Brunette.
Because the event took place in 2023, this report will fall under the purview of the Police Services Act; last year, it was changed to the Community Safety and Policing Act.
The chief can proceed with informal discipline, which falls under the employer-employee relationship and is therefore not public, said Brunette. Or, the matter will be heard in public as part of a disciplinary hearing.
“That’s under the autonomy of the chief,” said Brunette.
In 2022, Sudbury.com did a deep-dive into what happens when a police officer faces charges. You can find that story here.
Jenny Lamothe covers vulnerable and marginalized populations, as well as housing issues and the justice system for Sudbury.com.