Edit: The accused unsuccessfully appealed his conviction. You can read about that here.
The Alberta Court of Justice in Edmonton has delivered a significant sentencing decision involving a man who systematically attempted to undermine the criminal justice system by pressuring his former partner to withdraw allegations of domestic violence1. Justice R.E. Tibbitt presided over the sentencing of Edmond Joseph Gammel, who faced charges related to two separate instances of attempting to obstruct justice and two counts of breaching a release order. The case gained particular attention because the presiding judge took the rare step of rejecting a joint sentencing submission from the Crown and the defense regarding one of the most serious charges, concluding that a community-based sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The history of the matter dates back to early 2022, when Mr. Gammel was in custody at the Edmonton Remand Centre facing several violent charges involving his former intimate partner, Kaitlynn Kloschinsky. These allegations included assault causing bodily harm, choking, and uttering threats. While held in custody, Mr. Gammel was subject to a court order that strictly prohibited him from contacting Ms. Kloschinsky. Despite this legal prohibition, between February 1 and March 30, 2022, Mr. Gammel placed approximately 500 phone calls to the victim. These calls were recorded by the correctional facility and provided clear evidence of a concerted effort to derail the legal process.
Throughout these numerous conversations, Mr. Gammel repeatedly directed Ms. Kloschinsky to recant her allegations and refuse to testify at his upcoming trials. The court heard evidence that he instructed her to visit a specific lawyer to obtain a formal letter of recantation. He went so far as to provide her with the telephone number for the Edmonton Crown Prosecutors’ Office and the name of the specific prosecutor handling his files. He told Ms. Kloschinsky to inform the authorities that nothing had happened and that he needed to return home to his family. When she expressed reluctance or concern about how to explain her previous statements, Mr. Gammel provided her with excuses to use, such as claiming her injuries were sustained in a different manner or that she had fabricated the story due to emotional distress.
On one occasion, when Ms. Kloschinsky questioned how she could claim the events did not happen when police helicopter footage existed, Mr. Gammel dismissed her concerns. He told her to claim the surveillance was illegal and urged her to stop making excuses. He leveraged their relationship by professing his love and promising that he would pay her bills, repair her vehicle, and attend counseling if she secured his release by recanting. He also made statements that appeared to admit his responsibility for the violence, even as he pressured her to lie. Ultimately, Ms. Kloschinsky followed these instructions and recanted her allegations for two separate sets of charges, leading the Crown to stay the proceedings and release Mr. Gammel from custody.
The second phase of the criminal activity occurred after Mr. Gammel was granted interim judicial release following the stays of proceedings. On January 16, 2023, police responded to a 911 call from Ms. Kloschinsky’s residence. Although no one spoke to the emergency dispatcher, voices could be heard in the background. When police and a tactical team arrived at the home, they observed both Ms. Kloschinsky and Mr. Gammel inside. Mr. Gammel did not comply with police commands and instead attempted to flee by crawling out of a basement window. He was apprehended in a neighbor’s yard and subsequently charged with breaching his release conditions, which had prohibited him from contacting Ms. Kloschinsky or attending her residence.
Following this arrest, Mr. Gammel faced new allegations of assault causing bodily harm, extortion, and unlawful confinement involving Ms. Kloschinsky. Once again remanded to the Edmonton Remand Centre and placed under a new non-contact order, he resumed his attempts to obstruct justice. Between January 17 and April 6, 2023, he contacted Ms. Kloschinsky 343 times. To avoid detection, he used his own phone account as well as accounts belonging to other inmates. The pattern of these calls was nearly identical to the first instance of obstruction. He demanded that she write recantation letters, directed her on what content to include, and asked her to read the letters to him for his approval. For a second time, Ms. Kloschinsky recanted her allegations, and the Crown withdrew the underlying violent charges.
The sentencing process for these four offenses proved to be complex. Typically, in the Canadian legal system, when the Crown and defense counsel agree on a proposed sentence, known as a joint submission, judges follow that recommendation unless it is so low or high that it would make the public lose confidence in the justice system. This high threshold is known as the public interest test, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Anthony-Cook. In Mr. Gammel’s case, counsel presented two separate joint submissions. The first covered the first obstruction charge and the breaches of the release order, proposing a sentence of 15.5 months of incarceration. Justice Tibbitt accepted this proposal, noting that while it was low, it did not reach the level of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
However, the second joint submission regarding the second obstruction charge proved more contentious. Counsel proposed a Conditional Sentence Order, which would allow Mr. Gammel to serve his sentence in the community under strict conditions rather than in jail. The prosecutor argued that this approach would prioritize rehabilitation and provide Mr. Gammel with access to assessment and counseling, which might offer better long-term protection for the victim. The defense highlighted that Mr. Gammel had participated in a highly regimented “Boot Camp” program while in custody and was motivated to improve his life for the sake of his young daughter.
Justice Tibbitt ultimately rejected the proposal for a community-based sentence for the second obstruction charge. The judge emphasized that attempting to obstruct justice is a severe offense that strikes at the heart of the legal system. The court noted that in cases of intimate partner violence, recantation is a common and difficult issue, and the justice system must send a clear message that coercing a victim to lie will not be tolerated. Justice Tibbitt found that Mr. Gammel had demonstrated a blatant and repeated disregard for court orders, committing the second offense while in custody for the exact same behavior and while participating in a rehabilitation program.
In the written decision, Justice Tibbitt explained that a Conditional Sentence Order would send a message that it is worthwhile to attempt to coerce an intimate partner. The judge concluded that a reasonable person, aware of the fact that Mr. Gammel had successfully sabotaged multiple criminal trials through hundreds of illegal phone calls, would believe the justice system had broken down if he were allowed to serve his sentence in the community. The court observed that even the highest level of court-ordered protection, being remanded in a correctional facility, had failed to stop Mr. Gammel from contacting the victim.
The judge also considered Mr. Gammel’s personal background, including his Indigenous heritage and the systemic factors that often affect Indigenous offenders in Canada. While acknowledging that these factors could reduce moral culpability in some circumstances, the court found that Mr. Gammel’s culpability remained extremely high due to the intentional and repetitive nature of his actions. His criminal record, which included a prior conviction for kidnapping and several weapons offenses, was also cited as an aggravating factor.
In the final result, Justice Tibbitt imposed a custodial sentence that significantly exceeded the joint submission for the second obstruction charge. For the first obstruction offense, Mr. Gammel was sentenced to 435 days of incarceration, which was deemed satisfied by the time he had already spent in pre-trial custody. For the two counts of breaching his release order, he received 30 days on each count, also satisfied by time served. For the second and more recent attempt to obstruct justice, the judge sentenced Mr. Gammel to 600 days of incarceration. After accounting for his remaining pre-trial custody credit, he was ordered to serve an additional 323 days in jail. This period of incarceration will be followed by 12 months of probation, during which he is prohibited from contacting Ms. Kloschinsky and is required to participate in directed counseling and treatment programs.
Read more criminal law cases here.
