The Crown argued Ruben Adam Manz should go to jail, while the defence argued he should be allowed to serve a sentence in the community.
Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
The decision on whether a Regina chiropractor who was convicted of sexually assaulting a patient will spend time behind bars is now in the hands of a judge.
Justice Janet McMurtry heard arguments from lawyers about an appropriate sentence for Ruben Adam Manz on Friday in Regina’s Court of King’s Bench.
Manz, 49, went to trial facing seven counts of sexual assault, alleged by seven former patients. On Dec. 1, 2024, the jury convicted him on one count, found him not guilty on five counts and declared a mistrial on a seventh count.
Regarding the count on which he was convicted, the jury heard that Manz touched the patient’s breasts during the course of her chiropractic treatment. The victim cannot be identified due to a standard publication ban.
The sentencing arguments were meant to be heard in February, but there was a delay because the lawyers representing Manz did not submit a package of written materials until just before the date of the hearing, according to the Crown.
The arguments went ahead on May 16, with Crown prosecutor Carmody Hallamore arguing in favour of a 12-month jail sentence. Defence lawyer Blaine Beaven countered that a 12-month conditional sentence — effectively a jail sentence served in the community — would be appropriate.
The conditional sentence suggested by Beaven would allow Manz to stay out of jail, so long as he complied with a list of conditions put forward. Those include: living in an approved residence, observing a curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., participating in sex offender programming, having no contact with the victim, and completing 100 hours of community service.
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Speaking in favour of jail time, Hallamore pointed to Manz’ position as the woman’s medical caregiver at the time of the offence.
“The courts have found that abuse of this doctor-patient relationship is so egregious and the moral blameworthiness of the perpetrator is so high, as to fling open the door to custody, especially where sexual assaults have been committed against a patient,” she said.
Beaven acknowledged the offence included a breach of trust, but argued such breaches must be considered on a “spectrum.” He suggested the judge should consider the relatively short length of Manz’ relationship with the patient. He also said that — unlike relationships between a parent and child, a guard and prisoner, or an employer and an employee — the victim’s trust relationship with Manz was voluntary.
The defence lawyer said this does not diminish the seriousness of the offence, but provides context for where the breach of trust lands on a spectrum.
Regarding the seriousness of the offence, Beaven submitted that while Manz’ conduct involved a brief touching of the breasts, other cases considered by courts in the past have included far more egregious behaviour involving grooming and sexual acts.
“We’re discussing a single event, a single victim and what appears to be an error in judgement and an out-of-character action,” the defence lawyer said.
He held up his client’s lack of any previous criminal record and strong support from family and others who know him as mitigating factors, also noting his client’s past compliance with court-ordered conditions. Beaven suggested jail time would negatively affect both Manz’ remaining patients and employees of his clinic.
He further suggested that publicity around the trial and its effect on Manz’ business were things the judge could consider as contributing to sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
Hallamore rejected the notion that publicity — or “public shaming” of Manz — was a relevant factor for the judge to consider, calling it “of no moment.”
Should the judge decide jail time is necessary, Beaven suggested a 90-day sentence to be served on weekends would be more appropriate than the Crown’s recommended sentence.
Hallamore argued in favour of Manz being subject to an order that would place him on a sex offender registry and a firearms prohibition. Beaven argued against both, noting his client hunts to feed his family and does so to help with one of his children’s food allergies.
McMurtry reserved her decision on sentence and plans to deliver it in June.
bharder@postmedia.com
