Compensation

Evidence of Philip Sophonow

Philip Sophonow has had alcohol problems and has suffered from mental illness. As well, he has a criminal record. I have taken this into consideration when assessing his evidence.

Philip Sophonow was supportive of his brother. He said that his brother was an outgoing friendly person prior to March 1982 He stated that there was a marked difference in his personality after that date, when he became moody, quiet and introverted. He testified with moving sincerity as to his brother's description of finding that another prisoner had hung himself. The recounting of this incident obviously had a great impact on Thomas Sophonow who was reduced to tears in relating it. I accept this portion of Philip Sophonow's evidence. It is obvious that this incident, like so much of his prison experience, had a profound effect on Thomas Sophonow. Beyond this, the extent to which I can accept his evidence is that of a loyal older brother who considered Tom to be a changed person following his time in prison. Counsel for Manitoba contended that, in light of his addiction to alcohol, his mental affliction, and his criminal record, no weight should be given to any of his testimony. I agree that I can only accept a small portion of his testimony.

This review makes it clear that the evidence as to Thomas Sophonow's personality from those who knew him prior to March 1982 varies widely. This may not be too unusual. All of us may display different personalities to different people at different times. In any event, I have attempted to carefully assess the evidence of all the witnesses. I have made due allowance for their faulty memory, their frailties and biases.

In my assessment, I have taken into account both his acts of charity and his evidence as to his life after his release from prison in 1985, which I will review later. It is true that Thomas Sophonow's "charities" were referred to in a somewhat derogatory tone of voice. Nonetheless, they indicate true charity in that they are to a large extent acts of anonymous giving. Prior to March of 1982, he had given to a church organization in Vancouver. There is as well the very real act of charity in purchasing the Christmas stockings and delivering them anonymously to the hospitals. There is no doubt that he, in fact, made those purchases at the Safeway store and that he delivered the stockings to the hospitals. He did not want to give his name or make more of it than was appropriate. It was submitted (not by Counsel for Manitoba) that he wanted the cashier at Safeway to know what he was going to do with the stockings. However, I think that this is unfair and goes too far. He did not give his name to the cashier, he simply explained what he was going to do with the stockings.

Taking into account all the evidence I have heard and making due allowance for its frailties, I find that the personality of Thomas Sophonow prior to March of 1982 was that of a quiet man, perhaps somewhat introverted. He did have a caring side, he was sensitive and gentle and had many fine instincts. He had a prior record for offences that were minor, petty and not violent. It is true that he was continuing to act as a courier of stolen goods. Yet it appears that he was certainly not becoming wealthy from his criminal activity. From his lifestyle and the condition of the ancient car he drove, it is apparent that any income from his criminal activities was insignificant. I am convinced that he would soon have completely abandoned that activity. For a few months after his separation from Nadine, he had a problem with alcohol and drugs, which he overcame. He was not simply a petty criminal. He was overcoming a disastrous childhood. He was struggling to find himself in various organizations and relationships. He possessed a character and personality of such a nature that he could contribute, and has now contributed, to society. I am supported in this view by his conduct subsequent to his arrest and incarceration.

Like so many of us, Thomas Sophonow is a complex character. After careful consideration of the evidence, I conclude that he was not simply a petty criminal, callous, insensitive and beyond redemption. I conclude that there were appropriate grounds for Dr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Grymaloski and Dr. Silverthorne to base their conclusions as to the effect of imprisonment on Thomas Sophonow.