Warning: This story contains strong language that some readers may find disturbing
A local man accused of physically confronting his daughter鈥檚 bully at the arena earlier this year was found guilty of assault in Jasper Provincial Court, July 13.
Judge D.C. Norheim sentenced Kris Beeby to six months probation, which includes a no contact clause with the complainant or his parents. The complainant鈥檚 identity is protected by a publication ban because he is under 18 years of age.
The sentence handed to Beeby is a conditional discharge, which means he will not have a criminal record.
During the trial the courtroom heard from three witnesses, including Beeby and the complainant.
According to the complainant鈥檚 testimony, on March 4 around 11 a.m. the complainant was at the arena watching a hockey game with a friend and decided to get some food during the game鈥檚 first intermission.
While waiting for food at Shirley鈥檚 the complainant told the court room that Beeby grabbed him by the back of his neck and pushed him through a set of doors into the next room where he swore at him and threatened to hurt him.
鈥淗e said he was going to punch me and beat me up,鈥� said the complainant.
While being questioned by Crown attorney Phil Lefeuvre, the complainant acknowledged that Beeby confronted him because he had been 鈥渕ean鈥� to Beeby鈥檚 daughter.
Once they were in the other room, the complainant said Beeby grabbed him a second time, but this time by the collar and threatened him again.
Under cross-examination defense lawyer Kaj Jensen asked the complainant if he remembered some of the 鈥渕ean鈥� things he had said online to Beeby鈥檚 daughter.
The Crown immediately objected to the question.
鈥淭his is not a standing committee on bullying or fathering or anything like that,鈥� said Lefeuvre. 鈥淭his is a very narrowly focused inquiry and we would submit you should be very strict about what evidence we get into. This shouldn鈥檛 go into a detailed examination of what an 11-year-old and his friends wrote about another 11-year-old,鈥� said Lefeuvre.
Judge D.C. Norheim overruled the objection, stating that it was relevant to the trial because the comments could be seen as provocative in nature.
Jensen asked the complainant a series of probing questions about whether he remembered what Beeby had said to him during their encounter.
She also asked if he remembered some of the comments that were left on Instagram telling Beeby鈥檚 daughter to kill herself.
鈥淚 do, but I never said that,鈥� the complainant told the courtroom.
During Beeby鈥檚 testimony he admitted he confronted the child at the arena, but denied he grabbed him by the back of the neck.
Instead he told the judge he put his arm around the child to usher him into the room next door.
鈥淭here was no intention of any kind of harm whatsoever,鈥� said Beeby.
In the room next door Beeby said he backed the child up to a wall and asked if he thought it was funny to tell a girl to kill herself.
Beeby admitted he swore at the complaint several times throughout the ordeal, but denied grabbing him by the collar as the complaint alleged.
鈥淏efore I left I grabbed one finger on his jacket collar and I just said 鈥榙on鈥檛 make me f--king come back here鈥� and I walked out the door,鈥� said Beeby.
He also denied having ever threatened to punch or beat up the complainant.
After leaving the arena Beeby received a call from a friend asking what had happened and was told there were a bunch of parents at the arena who were concerned.
Beeby decided to go back to the arena and spoke to some of the parents. On his way out again he ran into RCMP Cpl. Tibor Lichter who was walking towards the arena.
After identifying himself, the two had a brief conversation before Beeby went home. On March 8 the RCMP called Beeby and told him to go to the police station where he was arrested and charged for assault and uttering threats. He was released two hours later on a promise to appear.
Under cross-examination Lefeuvre asked why he didn鈥檛 seek out another adult to deal with the matter.
鈥淚 was in the school the day before and had lunch and a meeting with the principal about these kids bullying my child,鈥� Beeby said, adding his daughter has been bullied since she was in Kindergarten.
Lefeuvre also asked Beeby whether he saw the irony in what he did.
Beeby rejected the accusation he was himself a bully and emphasized that he found the complainant's comments on social media provoking.
Lefeuvre suggested that Beeby鈥檚 memory of what happened that day could be clouded because of his anger, however Beeby reiterated he never grabbed or threaten the complaint as described.
In her closing arguments Jensen pointed to section 43 of the criminal code, which deals with correction of a child by force, however it only protects schoolteachers, parents and people who are directly caring for those pupils or students.
She said it was not a reliable defense in this case, however it also touches on reasonable force under certain circumstances.
鈥淭he force must be intended for correction and must be used for the purposes for learning and the child must be capable of learning from the corrective measures,鈥� said Jensen.
鈥淎lthough I am not using this defense I bring it up because had Mr. Beeby been a school teacher or parent I would argue all of those objective standards would be met with respect to the use of reasonable force.鈥�
She reiterated her client went to the arena to address the issue and it wasn鈥檛 done in the heat of the moment.
鈥淲e had to bring in the fact that his daughter was being cyber bullied. This is the behaviour that he went in to correct. He was going in to correct behaviour that he found was not being corrected any other way, through any other authorities, and not just for months, but for years,鈥� said Jensen.
She also disputed the complainant鈥檚 version of events stating children鈥檚 testimony cannot be relied on unless it is corroborated.
She went onto to state that had this occurred 20 years ago it likely would have never ended up in the courts.
Wrapping up her closing arguments Jensen said Beeby鈥檚 actions were minimal and didn鈥檛 meet the bar in terms of the charges laid.
鈥淚 would submit that it would be a sad day when a client like my own goes down and puts an arm around a boy and tells him 鈥榙on鈥檛 make me come down here again鈥� that amounts to an assault and a criminal record when he鈥檚 out there protecting his daughter from cyber-bullies.鈥�
In the Crown鈥檚 closing arguments he reminded the judge that the role of the courts is to uphold the rule of law.
鈥淭he rule of law is about the orderly and lawful resolution of disputes, not resolving disputes by physical force or threats, which is what we are alleging in this case,鈥� said Lefeuvre.
He described the issue of bullying and discipline as 鈥渟urface issues鈥� and said the most important issue is applying the rule of law.
鈥淭he accused has admitted to assaults, there鈥檚 no doubt about it,鈥� Lefeuvre said, adding Beeby touched the complainant twice without his consent.
He also said the judge should also uphold the charge of uttering threats against Beeby based on the complainant鈥檚 testimony.
During his sentencing Norheim agreed Beeby assaulted the complainant, however he described the assault as 鈥渕inor in nature鈥� and said there was never any threat of serious harm to the complainant.
鈥淚鈥檓 satisfied that he initially tried to take more appropriate steps to deal with this, but was getting no satisfaction,鈥� said Norheim. 鈥淭hat does not justify in my view his actions, but in all of these circumstances I鈥檓 reluctant to make an order that results in him obtaining a criminal record.鈥�
Beeby鈥檚 defense lawyer asked the judge to consider an absolute discharge while the Crown asked for a conditional discharge with six months probation.
In the end Beeby was given a conditional discharge and sentenced to six months probation. He was ordered to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and have no contact with the complainant or his parents. The judge found Beeby not guilty of uttering threats.
Paul Clarke
[email protected]
