R. v. Garie, 2021 BCPC 369

Citation: R. v. Garie 2021 BCPC 369 Date: 20211116 File No: 231099-3C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. HANNAH VALERIE ARIAL JAMYANG JIGME WANGDU TSERING TENZIN JAMYANG GARIE (RE: Accused Garie) ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. FERRISS Counsel for the Crown: P. Bachra Counsel for the Accused: R. Gill H. Cho, articled student Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 6, 2021 Date of Sentence: November 16, 2021

[ 1 ] January 6th, 2021, Tenzin Garie pleaded guilty to four counts of unlawfully trafficking in cocaine under s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . Those offences occurred on four separate occasions, on July 4th and 19th, 2018, August 30th, 2018 and September 20th, 2018. He also pleaded guilty to unlawfully trafficking in Oxycodone on one occasion under s. 5(1). That offence occurred on September 20th, 2018.

He pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) on September 20th, 2018, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on the same date. Those are Counts 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on Information 231099. [ 2 ] Mr. Garie's sentencing hearing came before me on October the 6th, 2021 and I reserved my decision until today. [ 3 ] There is no dispute that the offences that Mr. Garie has pleaded guilty to would result in a jail sentence.

The question in this case is whether that jail sentence can be served by way of a conditional sentence order, which is a jail sentence served in the community, or whether incarceration in a prison is the more appropriate jail sentence. The real issue is whether Mr. Garie's circumstances are out of the ordinary, such that the principles of sentencing would be met if he were to be sentenced to a conditional sentence order rather than in prison. [ 4 ] The circumstances of the offence are as follows. [ 5 ] Mr. Garie came to the attention of the Surrey RCMP during an investigation into dial-a-dope operations.

An undercover officer was directed to call a telephone number that was known to be an active dial-a-dope number. The undercover officer spoke to an unknown male at that number on June 27th, 2018 and set up a meet at Elements Casino. Mr. Garie, who identified himself as "Gino" to the undercover officer, arrived in a BMW and sold the officer $120 worth of powdered cocaine. On August 30th, 2018, the undercover officer was again directed to call that same number and to purchase 3.5 grams of powdered cocaine and two Oxycodone pills. The undercover officer called and spoke again to Gino, requesting those amounts.

Gino said he had to reload and he set up at the same meeting location. Again, Mr. Garie, known as Gino, was driving the vehicle that arrived about 30 minutes after the call. There was a female in the front passenger seat and the undercover officer paid $380 for the cocaine and the Oxycodone. [ 6 ] On September 13th, 2018, the undercover officer dialled the same number and spoke to Gino and recognized his voice. He purchased 3.5 grams of powdered cocaine again and a meeting was set up again at Elements Casino. Mr. Garie arrived in a different Nissan.

The undercover officer paid $220 for 3.5 grams of powdered cocaine. He said that Mr. Garie had a bag of drugs between his legs that he was rummaging through to get the 3.5 grams of powdered cocaine. The officer asked if he could buy an ounce of cocaine and Mr. Garie told him that it could be gotten for $1,900. [ 7 ] On September 20th, 2018, a different undercover agent called the same telephone number and a meeting was set up at 24th Avenue and 160th Street in Surrey. Mr. Garie was driving a white Nissan Altima and the undercover officer purchased a bag of 3.5 grams of powdered cocaine and two Oxycodone pills.

This time both Mr. Garie and the female were arrested. A search revealed 25 Oxycodone pills, 23.4 grams of powdered cocaine and $1,485 in his wallet. A cell phone was heard ringing and the police found a BlackBerry phone on the floor of the vehicle with the same number that they had called by way of the undercover officer. Thirty minutes after the arrest a call was received from someone ordering drugs on that telephone. [ 8 ] The Crown submits that Mr. Garie is a low-level street trafficker. [ 9 ] Mr. Garie's circumstances are that he is 26 years of age and he comes before the court with no prior criminal record.

He was 23 years old at the time of the offences. [ 10 ] A pre-sentence report was completed regarding Mr. Garie. While his parents separated when he was five years of age due to his father's alcoholism and his relationship with his father is poor as a result, he has a good relationship with his mother and two older siblings. His mother said that her separation with her husband affected him so that he became withdrawn in high school and that Mr. Garie's grades had suffered. He has lived his entire life at the family home, but had recently moved in with his girlfriend at the time of the sentencing hearing.

I understand that his girlfriend does not have any drug or alcohol issues. [ 11 ] In terms of his own use, Mr. Garie reported that he has the odd social drink and that he smoked marihuana on a regular basis which led to negative influences. He said he was selling cocaine and Oxycodone for six to eight months and he never used the products himself. He was earning about $1,000 a week from the sale of drugs and saw it as an easy way of making money. I note that Mr. Garie does not suffer from any mental health issues. [ 12 ] He completed his Grade 12 education and was an average student.

He has been employed as a landscaper's assistant and a mover since then. His current employer described him as a skilled, dependable labourer and has opportunities to obtain further training in forklift operation, equipment training, flagging, safety, and perhaps the ability to enter the Red Seal program and future management courses. He is currently paid $29 an hour and, since March 2021, he has completed his Fall Protection Certificate and Telehandler Operations Ticket. I understand he is a quick learner. [ 13 ] Mr.

Garie has provided letters of reference and support from his mother, his sister and his girlfriend and he has been in the community on his release order without re-offending although I do note that the terms of his release order were not terribly onerous. [ 14 ] The Crown is seeking a global sentence of 18 months of jail for Mr. Garie, followed by one year of probation. The Crown further seeks an arms prohibition for a period of 10 years under s. 109 of the Criminal Code , noting that it is a mandatory prohibition. They ask for a DNA sample to be taken from Mr.

Garie under s. 487.04 of the Code, which is discretionary, and finally, the Crown seeks forfeiture of the property that was seized from Mr. Garie. [ 15 ] The defence agrees that an 18-month sentence is appropriate for Mr. Garie but says that it should be served in the community under a conditional sentence order. The defence says that, if the sentence is to be served by way of conditional sentence order, there should be two years of probation in order to monitor Mr. Garie. In his submission, Mr. Garie submits that the protection of the public

would be better served if a non-custodial sentence were handed down because it would aim towards his rehabilitation so that he could continue on with his now productive lifestyle [ 16 ] Both counsel provided me with a substantial number of cases. The Crown relies on the decisions of: R. v. Franklin , 2001 BCSC 706 ; R. v. Ahmed , 2001 BCCA 504 ; R. v. Tran , 2007 BCCA 613 ; R. v. Cisneros , 2014 BCCA 154 ; R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 ; R. v. Oates , 2015 BCCA 259 ; and R. v. Ruiz , 2019 BCCA 323 . [ 17 ] The Defence relies on: R. v. Chen , 2021 BCSC 697 ; [2021] BCJ No 787 ; R. v. Franklin , (supra); R. v.

Howard , 2021 BCPC 167 ; R. v. Joon , 2017 BCPC 301 ; R. v. Lo , 2015 BCSC 1821 ; R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 ; R. v. Rutter , 2017 BCCA 193 ; R. v. Van Der Walt , 2017 BCSC 557 ; R. v. Voong , (supra); and R. v. Wong , 2016 BCSC 1568 . [ 18 ] The Defence has also submitted three scholarly articles: 1. Boyd, Rodney C., “Beyond Social Disorganization Theory: The Influence of Multiple Structural Determinants of Crime on an Urban Community” (2020). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2785. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2785 . 2.

Howell, James C. and Egley, Arlen Jr., “Moving Risk Factors into Developmental Theories of Gang Membership” (Sep 2, 2005). Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 3 No. 4, October 2005. http://yvi.sagepub.com/content/3/4/334 . 3. Reasons, Charles et al; “Race and Criminal Justice in Canada”

(2016) International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences (IFCJS) – Official Journal of the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCF), July – December 2016. Vol 11(2): 75 - 99. [ 19 ] The principles of sentencing regarding drug offences are set out in s. 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which reads that: Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code , the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this

Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 20 ] The same

section tells me that I must also take into account, as an aggravating factor in the commission of an offence, trafficking in a substance included in

Schedule I of the CDSA and I note that in this case the substances Mr. Garie was involved in trafficking, cocaine and Oxycodone, were

Schedule I substances. [ 21 ] The principles of sentencing are also set out in the Criminal Code and the fundamental purpose of sentencing, of course, is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, respect for the law and maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

By doing that, I am to look towards denouncing unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims; deterring the offender and other persons from committing those offences; if necessary, separating the offenders from society; assisting in rehabilitation of the offenders; to provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. [ 22 ] I also have to take into account the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, that a sentence for one offender must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances, and, where consecutive sentences are imposed, I must take into account that they must not be unduly harsh or long and if there are less restrictive sanctions appropriate in the circumstances, then the offender should not be deprived of their liberty. [ 23 ] Then I must look at all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and that are

consistent to the harm done to the victims or the community. [ 24 ] Until the Safe Streets and Communities Act was passed in 2012, a conditional sentence order was available for the offences Mr. Garie has pleaded guilty to, but the changes that that Act made to the Criminal Code removed those options for offences where the maximum term of imprisonment was 14 years which included the types of offences Mr. Garie has pleaded to. [ 25 ] In the recent case of R. v. Chen , Mr.

Justice Schultes concluded that the changes made to the legislation under the Safe Streets and Communities Act were overly broad and that, by making conditional sentence orders unavailable to anyone who committed a crime for which the maximum sentence was 14 years or life, the government had included everyone who committed such an offence, including offenders who committed offences that had high maximums but that involved circumstances in the lower range of seriousness. In doing so, they created effects that were overly broad and breached s. 7 of the Charter . Mr.

Justice Schultes therefore declared that s. 742.1(

c) of the Code was invalid. [ 26 ] That decision is binding on me because it is a decision made by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but its only effect on Mr. Garie's case is to open up the availability of a conditional sentence order for the types of offences he has pleaded guilty to.

Provided the sentence I impose is less than two years, and also provided that it would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing, I may order the offender to serve the sentence in the community. [ 27 ] Some of the cases provided by the Crown and defence were decided prior to the Safe Streets and Communities Act when a conditional sentence order was available for trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking and I will start with those cases. [ 28 ] In Franklin , Mr.

Justice Henderson found that a conditional sentence order was available to the offender because he was not a danger to the community and an appropriate sentence would be less than two years. I note that the sentencing followed a five-day trial so it was not a guilty plea, and Mr. Justice Henderson found that Mr. Franklin was running a busy dial-a-dope operation. The judge also found that the conditional sentence order would have a rehabilitative effect aspect, permitting the offender to continue working as a longshoreman. Mr.

Franklin was young at 26 years of age and he had only a dated and unrelated criminal record. He had had a difficult upbringing because his mother had been a heroin addict and his father was an alcoholic. [ 29 ] The judge placed considerable weight on the general deterrence aspect in sentencing in imposing a custodial jail sentence. He noted that the Lower Mainland of BC is overrun with cocaine and heroin and that those who operate dial-a-dope operations are responsible for the increased availability of the drugs.

Where an offender is not a drug addict themselves, then they are simply making the business decision to risk the consequences of being caught to obtain higher profits for little effort. Mr. Justice Henderson drew a distinction between drug dealers who were selling drugs to feed their own habit and the others who are simply lured to the easy money. In that case, he found the proper sentence was nine months' imprisonment. [ 30 ] The next case the Crown relies on, the Ahmed decision, is also from the BC Court of Appeal. The Crown had appealed an 18- month conditional sentence for trafficking in cocaine.

The sentence was handed down after a trial and so it was not a guilty plea. The court in that case noted that the offender was convicted on six counts arising out of six sales of cocaine to an undercover officer and involved a dial-a-dope operation. The decision goes on to say that such an operation is often referred to in sentencing cases as an aggravating factor because this method of distribution makes drug dealers mobile and better able to avoid police detection. [ 31 ] The court found that the fact that the sales occurred over several weeks, indicating that Mr.

Ahmed had continued involvement, was an aggravating factor. An additional aggravating factor was that Mr. Ahmed was not an addict or user himself and that the store from which he provided the drugs in five of the transactions occurred near a school. A further aggravating factor was that Mr.

Ahmed himself was on bail for an assault charge at the time. [ 32 ] The court stated that, in a case involving trafficking in hard drugs, there must be some significant factor or factors relating to the background of the offender, his underlying reasons for trafficking or his pre-sentence effort at rehabilitation that would support the imposition of a conditional sentence. The court noted that Mr.

Ahmed did not acknowledge his responsibility or propose a plan of rehabilitation, and while he had letters of support, was in a stable relationship with a new baby, and he was employed, those things were not enough to show that he was rehabilitated. The court found that denunciation and deterrence remained the most important factors in that case because Mr.

Ahmed acted entirely out of greed over several weeks in a neighbourhood where there was a particular need to deter drug trafficking. [ 33 ] In Tran , the Court of Appeal refused to overturn a nine-month custodial sentence when the offender was young, 28 years at the time of the offence, and had no prior criminal record.

The offender's chances of rehabilitation were considered excellent by the sentencing judge and the sentencing judge read the cases, particularly that of Franklin , to mean that dial-a-dope operations are sophisticated, are a blight on the community and everybody, anybody who undertakes such an operation does so at their peril, and apart from perhaps very exceptional circumstances, anybody who undertakes to enter a scheme of that nature will be facing custodial time.

The Court of Appeal stated: There is a line, fairly long now, of cases from this Court in which, absent an out of the ordinary circumstance, a custodial sentence has been found to be a fit sentence on a conviction of trafficking in a hard drug in what is referred to as a “dial-a-dope” scheme, where the offender is not an addict and has participated simply for profit. [ 34 ] The balance of the Crown's case law deals with suspension of sentencing which is not as applicable to the argument before me since it does not deal with a conditional sentence order; however, I do note that the Court of Appeal states in the Oates case at paragraph 25 : It seems to me on reading the reasons for sentence that the judge was attracted to the view, expressed in at least one of the trial level decisions to which he referred, that repentance and rehabilitation after charges are laid in such an offence, supported by a suspension of sentence and terms of probation, communicates a beneficial message to the community.

This approach does not commend itself to me as a general rule of thumb, as it fails to reflect the other way of viewing this – such an approach makes the recruitment of financially compromised individuals without a drug offence record attractive to the persons higher up in the illegal drug trade. Further, it lowers risk

to the individual taking the decision to pursue, in the words of Franklin , "high profits… with little effort". [ 35 ] I now turn to the cases presented by the defence, most of which also deal with suspended sentences rather than conditional sentence orders. [ 36 ] In Howard , which is a recent decision of our court, the offender was sentenced for her involvement in a dial-a-dope operation that occurred in 2016. She had a significant quantity of drugs in her purse and the street value would have been in the neighbourhood of $14,320. The offender was found to be selling drugs to fuel her addiction.

At the time, she was 38 years old and she had a criminal record with property crimes, driving while impaired, and a breach, as well as a conviction for trafficking from nine years prior. She received a conditional sentence order for the previous trafficking conviction, but it had been terminated because she had breached it. The sentencing judge in her current case noted that the primary principles of sentencing for drug trafficking are denunciation and deterrence; however, the court relied on R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , paragraph 4 , and R. v.

Schneider, 2019 BCCA 310 , paragraphs 10-11 , : ..."one of the main objectives of Canadian criminal law is the rehabilitation of offenders” which assists the court to impose a sentence in any given case which is "just and appropriate". [ 37 ] He further noted as aggravating the fact that Ms. Howard was trafficking in more than one hard drug, including fentanyl, that the counterfeit Oxycontin looked real and also contained fentanyl, that it was a dial-a-dope operation, and that obviously she had the previous conviction for trafficking.

There were concerns that she had not engaged in counselling. [ 38 ] However, there were a number of mitigating factors in her favour. She pleaded guilty, she took responsibility for her actions, and she made statements against her interest which absolved the driver of responsibility. She was sincerely remorseful and had insight into the impact of her behaviour. She was fueling her own addiction and she had been successful in abstaining from the consumption of illicit drugs.

She had taken steps to stabilize her home environment, renewed a commitment to her children, and completed an educational program while working and had found steady work in her field. She had made substantial progress on her own. The sentencing judge found that a suspended sentence would not have been appropriate and that a conditional sentence was. [ 39 ] The remainder of the cases provided by defence dealt with suspended sentences. In R. v. Joon , the offender was very similar to Mr. Garie and he had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in fentanyl and heroin.

He had also been charged with three other incidents involving trafficking heroin and possession of heroin and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. The offender was the driver of the vehicle that involved dial-a-dope transactions. The offender was not a drug user himself. He was very young, he was 19 years old at the time of the offence and he lived at home. He had had a positive upbringing and had completed grade 12. He did not use drugs and he became involved in trafficking solely for the purposes of monetary gain.

He had letters of support that the court believed made him pro- social, well-adjusted, and kind, and the court found that the offences were out of character for him. He was enrolled in an electrician program and in his second year of training. [ 40 ] The sentencing judge found the mitigating factors to be his youthfulness, the pro-social life he was living after his arrest, his educational program and employment. She found there was no need to specifically deter him or protect the public. Of course, the aggravating factor was his motivation was simply greed.

She found that his circumstances were exceptional, however, and gave him a suspended sentence. [ 41 ] The decision in R. v. Low was also considered by the judge in Joon , and in that case the court found the offender to be guilty of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking and possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. The two offences occurred on the same day and were part of the same dial-a-dope operation. The street value of the drugs was $1,100 to $1,300.

The mitigating circumstances in that case were that the offender had no criminal record, he was youthful, he had a job, a wife and a daughter, he had a close-knit family, and he was remorseful. The aggravating factors were that he was a dial-a-dope operation, his sole motive was profit, and the drugs involved were

Schedule I substances. The issue was whether Mr. Low's circumstances were exceptional. The court found that they were and suspended sentence followed by three-year probation. [ 42 ] But then we turn to R. v. Rutter , which is an appeal from sentence by the Crown in two separate cases to the Court of Appeal. In that case, Mr. Rutter, who had pleaded guilty for trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine one day into a trial, was sentenced.

He had a drug addiction at 22 years of age, but the amount he received from drug dealing more than covered his drug habit, and since his arrest, he successfully completed a residential program for drug treatment, was attending AA meetings regularly, was gainfully employed, and he had no previous criminal record. He received a suspended sentence and three years' probation. [ 43 ] A second offender in that decision, Mr. Ramstead, was 24 years old and had no criminal record. He also pleaded guilty to a single count of trafficking in fentanyl and heroin.

The judge found that he was selling drugs to support his educational endeavours and gave him a suspended sentence and 18 months' probation. [ 44 ] The Court of Appeal found that the fit sentence for a first-time offender in a dial-a-dope scheme was six to nine months at the time of the sentencing and changed both sentences to six months' incarceration, plus probation. In particular, the Court of Appeal was critical of the sentencing judge's speculation as to whether Mr. Rutter's sobriety would be threatened if he was incarcerated.

The court also found it was incorrect for the sentencing judge to find that sale of drugs to support his educational endeavours was an exceptional circumstance in Mr. Ramstead's case. The court finally found that the sentencing judge in Rutter had lost sight of the presumptive effectiveness of jail as a general deterrent. [ 45 ] Similarly, in Van Der Walt , the offender had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine. There were six other counts on the Information.

They were not relied on as aggravating factors due to the nature of that case, but they were considered to be evidence that she had continued to be involved in the dial-a-dope operation for the four months. The amount of cocaine purchased in the one count she pleaded guilty to was a very minimal amount. She suffered from chronic pain syndrome and had been sexually assaulted at an early age. [ 46 ] She was involved in the dial-a-dope operation as a result of the fact her partner had been laid off from his employment and it appeared he would not be able to obtain Employment Insurance.

The offender was unable to work or receive income assistance at that

point. The court found all of those were mitigating factors, plus her lack of a criminal record, the support she had from her family, her previous work record, and the fact she had used the delay between her offending and her sentencing to make changes that gave assurance of some rehabilitation. She removed herself from the criminal behaviour before rather than after her arrest which he found demonstrated her remorse.

He found the list of mitigating circumstances amounted to exceptional and he suspended her sentence. [ 47 ] And finally in Wong , the offender pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine which covered four separate transactions over the course of a month. He was just over 18 years old at the time and since his arrest the accused had shown a significant change in his attitude, lifestyle and friends. He had done some volunteer work, he had no criminal record, he was not a drug addict, and the sentencing judge suspended the passing of sentence and gave him three years’ probation. [ 48 ] I now turn to Mr.

Garie. [ 49 ] With respect to Mr. Garie, it is clear that a conditional sentence order is an available sentence. However, reviewing all of the cases that I have, it is clear to me that the Court of Appeal has consistently stated that the starting point is six months' incarceration for offences like this where it is a first-time offender, absent circumstances that take the offender or the offence out of the ordinary. The defence argues that the law has developed since the Franklin decision and that the default is no longer incarceration.

He notes that in 2001 when Franklin was decided there were no Smartphones and mobile phones were not as common; however, I note that the Court of Appeal in Oates at paragraph 18 states that: To the extent the [sentencing] judge may have thought the comments about the usual sentence in a dial-a-dope trafficking case were only directed to cases of particular sophistication on the part of the offender, it seems to me he is mistaken.

It is the structured business model of dial-a-dope trafficking that has been described as sophisticated, not the particular operation before the court. [ 50 ] In this case, the aggravating factors are that Mr. Garie was involved in trafficking in cocaine and Oxycodone, both of which are

Schedule I drugs, he was involved in the dial-a-dope operation, he was able to procure one ounce of powdered cocaine on one occasion, or said he was able to, he was involved in the dial-a-dope operation for at least three months by the charges but longer, according to the pre-sentence report. I also take into account that he was trafficking in these substances as a way to make easy money only; he is not and was not using drugs. He has no mental health issues. [ 51 ] The mitigating circumstances are that Mr. Garie is a youthful offender.

He had a somewhat difficult childhood, being raised by a single mother and having a strained relationship with his father, but generally he was brought up in a positive, pro-social home. He has the support of his family. He comes before the court without a criminal record. He is gainfully employed with [omitted for publication]. The company is supportive of him and will give him the opportunity for education and a career. He has pleaded guilty and accepted the responsibility for his actions.

I am advised he is travelling a pro-social trajectory at this point and it has been three years between the dates of the offences and the date of sentencing. [ 52 ] However, I also find that the mitigating circumstances are not really out of the ordinary. He bears more responsibility for his actions because his decision to deal in drugs was essentially a business decision. He was not fuelling his own addiction or dealing with mental health issues. He decided to sell very serious drugs despite the opioid crisis that is in the news on a daily basis and the number of deaths there have been from the opioid crisis.

As pointed out by the Crown and in the Franklin decision, Surrey and the rest of the Lower Mainland is overrun with cocaine and other hard drugs such as Oxycodone. The dial-a-dope operations make distribution of those drugs easy, particularly in the residential areas of our city and to people who are addicted to those drugs. [ 53 ] The range of sentence for a first-time offender is six to nine months as set out in the Court of Appeal cases for first-time offenders without a criminal record and in this case I find the circumstances do not take it out of the ordinary circumstances for sentencing.

I find that the conditional sentence order would not satisfy the sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence, nor that of denunciation. [ 54 ] In this case, I am sentencing Mr. Garie to prison. Mr. Garie, if you want to stand up. [ 55 ] On Counts 3, 5 and 7 I am sentencing you to six months concurrent for each of those counts, in prison, and on Counts 8, 9, 10 and 11, I am sentencing you to nine months concurrent, one to the other and concurrent to the six-month sentence on Counts 3, 5 and 7.

Therefore, the total sentence is nine months in prison. [ 56 ] That custodial sentence will be followed by a 12-month probation order and I will get the terms from the Crown after this. [ 57 ] There will be the firearms prohibition, so it is a 10-year firearms prohibition and it will be in the following terms.

You must not possess, directly or indirectly, any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code including firearms and ammunition, crossbows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices or explosive substances, anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person. Any imitation firearms or weapons, including any compressed air guns or BB or pellet guns, or any related authorizations, licenses and registration certificates and you must not apply for any of these. [ 58 ] There will be the DNA sample to be taken from Mr.

Garie under s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code . I note that that is discretionary but, given the offences that he has pleaded guilty to, I believe it would be in the interests of justice. [ 59 ] Finally, there was a forfeiture order sought by the Crown and I will make that forfeiture order with respect to the property seized from Mr. Garie. [ 60 ] So Ms. Bachra, you were going to give me the terms, I believe, that you wanted on the probation order? [PROCEEDINGS] [ 61 ] THE COURT: I am going to make the probation order for six months. I do not think it is that necessary.

I am not going to make a reporting order, it will simply be that for six months, Mr. Garie must keep the peace and be of good behaviour, you must appear before

the court when he is required to do so by the court, and you must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of address or name, and promptly notify the court or any officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 62 ] THE CLERK: Can you just confirm which count the probation order is on? [ 63 ] THE COURT: It will be on all counts. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)