R. v. Laramee, 2017 BCSC 1799

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Laramee, 2017 BCSC 1799 Date: 20170919 Docket: 83225-2 Registry: Kelowna Regina v. Alexander Raymond Laramee Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to s. 486.31(1) of the Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of evidence that could identify a witness, referred to in this reasons by the initials C.V., C.P., and C.B. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Before: The Honourable Madam Justice MacNaughton Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: A. Ross Counsel for the Accused: M.

Stephenson Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Kelowna, B.C. September 19, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Kelowna, B.C. September 19, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On June 30, 2017, I convicted Alexander Raymond Laramee on six different counts arising from a home invasion in Kelowna, in the late hours of November 21 and the early hours of November 22, 2015. [ 2 ] Mr. Laramee was convicted of the following offences under the Criminal Code of Canada , R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-46 [ Code ]: i. break and enter and commit the indictable offence of assault, contrary to s. 348(1)(b); ii. break and enter and commit the indictable offence of robbery, contrary to s. 348(1)(b); iii. carrying, using, or threatening to use a weapon or imitation weapon in the assault of C.V., contrary to s. 267(a); iv. assault of C.P. and C.B., contrary to s. 266; v. with intent to commit an indictable offence, masking his face, contrary to s. 351(2); and vi. without lawful authority, confining C.P. and C.B., contrary to s. 279(2). [ 3 ] Pursuant to the agreement of the Crown and the defence, applying the Kienapple principle, I entered a stay of the conviction on offence iv. [ 4 ] I turn now to the circumstances of the offence.

Circumstances of the Offence [ 5 ] The circumstances of the offence were set out in my reasons for judgment indexed at 2017 BCSC 1165 . Briefly, on November 21, 2014, when he was 20, Mr. Laramee participated in a home invasion of a Kelowna condominium belonging to C.V. Mr. Laramee and a companion entered the condominium through an unlocked front door, wearing dark clothing, toques, gloves, and masks which concealed their identities. They intended to steal cash that they were told was in the condominium in a safe. [ 6 ] C.V., C.P., and C.B. were in the condominium when Mr. Laramee and his companion broke in. Mr.

Laramee's companion assaulted C.V. with a weapon, a hammer in, what appears to have been, gratuitous violence. Until entering the condominium, Mr. Laramee was not aware that his companion had a weapon. C.V.'s wounds required an MRI and a number of stitches. C.V. has a permanent lump on the top his head from the assault. After committing the assault on C.V., Mr. Laramee's companion fled the condominium, leaving him there with C.P. and C.B., two young women who had been visiting C.V. Mr. Laramee restrained the two women and prevented them from leaving or seeking help.

[ 7 ] When C.P. would not remain quiet and was calling for help, Mr. Laramee punched her repeatedly in the face and, while on top of her, pushed her face into the couch to prevent her from yelling. He did so even after she said she could not breathe. Mr. Laramee also hit C.B. He prevented both women from leaving the apartment. He did not have or use a weapon, but C.P. was bruised and cut as a result of the punches that she received. She had a black eye and a goose egg bump on her forehead, both of which healed in the normal course. [ 8 ] Mr. Laramee did not flee the scene.

When neighbours arrived, he was not violent. He was arrested at the scene and, for the most part, cooperated with the police. [ 9 ] The home invasion occurred at the end of a road trip in which Mr. Laramee travelled from Winnipeg to Kelowna with three other individuals. Mr. Laramee relied on the defence of duress, but I did not accept that he had established the elements of that defence. Victim Impact Statements [ 10 ] None of the victims provided a formal impact statement, but all three gave evidence at the trial.

It was clear that they were traumatized by the events and, as I have said, C.V. and C.P. suffered injuries as a result. Circumstances of the Offender [ 11 ] I turn now to the circumstances of the offender. Mr. Laramee is now 23 years old. He is a first-time offender. His background is set out in a pre-sentence report prepared by a probation officer in the Interlake Community and Youth Corrections in the Community Safety Division of Community Corrections in Selkirk, Manitoba. [ 12 ] Mr. Laramee was born in British Columbia but grew up in Manitoba.

His parents separated when he was five or six years old, and he lived primarily with his father and an older and a younger brother. He had periods of time living with his mother, who has a history of alcohol abuse. His father had various partners and children who looked after Mr. Laramee and his brothers. His father is described by him as both physically and emotionally abusive, and Mr. Laramee's paternal grandmother described her son as having a very short temper. [ 13 ] Mr.

Laramee's closest familial relationships are with his older brother and his paternal grandparents who were primarily responsible for raising him. His grandmother said that her son and Mr. Laramee's mother should never have been parents, as neither had the skills necessary to effectively parent. [ 14 ] Mr. Laramee was shy and anxious in school, and his father had to walk him to school to make sure he attended. He was bullied. Mr. Laramee said that he was part of a group of high school friends who considered themselves outcasts.

His grandmother describes him as a “follower, not a leader”, and “like a teenager, not an adult”. [ 15 ] His grandmother said that Mr. Laramee could not cope in public school, and during a period when he lived with her in Kamloops, he attended a special school where he received individual support and did well. He was tested for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, but the results were negative. [ 16 ] After his arrest, Mr. Laramee did not tell anyone about his situation. He said that he was ashamed of his involvement in the home invasion.

When his grandmother learned that he was in jail, she posted bail, and he has resided with her and her husband for the past 18 months and has had little contact with either of his parents. He has been fully compliant with his bail conditions, including a 9:00 p.m. curfew, such that checks on his compliance were discontinued by the local RCMP. [ 17 ] Mr. Laramee is currently in an intimate relationship with Scarlett Froese, a young woman whom he has known for more than two years. They began dating in May 2015, after meeting in Winnipeg. They terminated their relationship when Mr.

Laramee left on the road trip to British Columbia, because Ms. Froese did not like the people he was hanging out with and she felt that he was being controlled by them and did not stick up for himself. The relationship was rekindled while Mr. Laramee was in custody. [ 18 ] Ms. Froese says that Mr. Laramee is not an aggressive person and regrets the harm his actions have caused. Ms. Froese says that Mr. Laramee takes care of her, would never do anything on purpose to hurt her. [ 19 ] Mr. Laramee expressed great remorse to the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report.

He said that it was clear to him from their evidence at trial, that his actions had a lasting impact on the victims for which he was sorry. [ 20 ] In 2011, Mr. Laramee graduated from Grade 12 and worked as a prep cook at McDonald's for two years, after which he left to work as a roofer with a friend. That job ended after his friend was incarcerated. He was out of work for some time, and living off credit cards and facing eviction, when he moved back into his father's home in Winnipeg and began working at an upscale restaurant, first as a dishwasher and then as a prep cook.

He was unhappy living in his father's home, as they did not get along. He went on the road trip to get away from this situation. [ 21 ] Mr. Laramee is not currently working. He has been doing odd jobs for family members to help out with his room and board. His grandmother believes that he is anxious and depressed about his current situation and has probably suffered from depression for most of his life. She believes that his depression is impeding his job search. [ 22 ] Since his April 2016 release from remand custody, Mr. Laramee spends most of his leisure time with Ms. Froese.

A close friend committed suicide when he was in jail, and he blames himself for not being there to help him. [ 23 ] Ms. Froese believes that Mr. Laramee is anxious and depressed. Both Ms. Froese and his grandmother describe Mr. Laramee as an introvert who does not open up about his feelings. Mr. Laramee has not taken any steps to obtain medical treatment for his possible

anxiety and depression. He says that he has not sought employment because it would be unfair to an employer to have him resign as a result of any sentence he might receive for his offences. [ 24 ] In the presentence report, Mr. Laramee was assessed at medium risk for offending behaviour because of his antisocial relationships, lack of significant family support, and his current unemployment. The probation officer described Mr. Laramee as somewhat naïve and, because of his upbringing, vulnerable to dominant personalities. [ 25 ] Mr. Laramee's most important social contacts are Ms.

Froese and one close friend with whom he speaks daily. He has other friends who live in Winnipeg, but his current curfew limits whom he can visit and what he can do with his peers. [ 26 ] He was supported at this sentencing hearing by his grandmother and his great aunt. Contrary to the finding in the pre-sentence report, I accept that Mr. Laramee has received ongoing support from members of his extended family since the home invasion.

Positions of the Crown and the Defence [ 27 ] I turn now to the positions of the Crown and the defence. [ 28 ] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentences for the various offences for which Mr.

Laramee has been convicted are as follows: for the offence of break and enter to commit assault, a range of seven to nine years; for the offence of break and enter to commit robbery, a range of seven to nine years; for the assault with a weapon, a range of three to four years; for the offence of masking, a range of one to two years; and for the offence of confinement, a range of three to four years. [ 29 ] The Crown submits that all sentences should be served concurrently, as they all arose out of the one incident. [ 30 ] The Crown and defence have agreed that Mr. Laramee spent 145 days in pretrial custody.

Giving credit of one and a half days for each day served, they agree that he should be given credit for 218 days, as against any sentence. I calculate that Mr. Laramee should be given credit for seven and a half months of pretrial custody. [ 31 ] In addition, the Crown seeks the mandatory ten-year prohibition with respect to any firearm under s.109(2) (a)(ii) of the Code , and a mandatory lifetime prohibition for prohibited or restricted firearms or weapons under s. 109(2)(

b) of the Code . [ 32 ] The Crown also seeks a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code and a forfeiture order, although it was not clear in the submissions what it is that it seeks to have Mr.

Laramee forfeit, and I will deal with that later in these reasons. [ 33 ] The defence seeks a sentence of time already served followed by a lengthy probation order, which could include orders for curfew or house arrest, with a focus on rehabilitation. [ 34 ] I have considered the sentencing authorities provided to me by both counsel, but note that the sentences in each of them are based on the specific facts of those cases. Ranges are not rules and, depending on the circumstances of the specific offences and the offender, a fit sentence can fall outside the usual ranges.

Establishing a range for home invasion crimes is difficult because of the different offences that may be committed in the course of them. The Code does not include a special offence for home invasions. The cases demonstrate that higher sentences are appropriate when the victims suffer serious injuries. [ 35 ] The Crown relies on a number of Court of Appeal decisions. In R. v. Vickers , 2007 BCCA 554 , the court upheld a ten-year sentence in a case involving gunshots fired by one of three intruders and an occupant of the home being struck with a pipe wrench.

The court considered the ten-year sentence at the middle of the range for home invasion cases. At para. 17, the court said: … Mr. Vickers and his confederates came armed and prepared to use violence to achieve their objectives. Although the Crown did not prove that Mr. Vickers was in possession of one of the two handguns he was nonetheless an active participant in a home invasion in which they were used. It was only fortunate that neither [victim] sustained more serious physical injuries. A home invasion, by its very nature, has a terrorizing effect on its victims.

The use of a firearm only exacerbates the situation. [ 36 ] The offenders in Vickers had substantial criminal histories. On the day of the home invasion, Mr. Vickers had just been released from prison after an 18-month sentence for assault. The court acknowledged that rehabilitation is a factor on sentencing, but in Mr. Vickers' case said “rehabilitation was far less significant when there is a need to protect the public from an offender who has demonstrated a penchant for violence.” [ 37 ] The dominant sentencing factor was protection of the public.

The court expressed the gravity of offences which involve entering a person's home and violating the occupants at para. 12. As Justice Frankel wrote: … deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors in sentencing for violent crimes, particularly when these crimes violate the safety and security of a person’s home. [ 38 ] Justice Frankel referenced R. v. Meigs , 2007 BCCA 394 , at para. 25 , Justice Saunders said: … it is a grave offence to enter another person’s home without permission, and graver to enter the home and violate the occupant.

The courts must and do impose stern sanctions for such crimes. [ 39 ] In R. v. Moore , 2008 BCCA 129 , also relied on by the Crown, Mr. Moore was found guilty of robbery, break and enter, uttering a threat, and suffocation. An eight-year sentence was upheld on appeal. [ 40 ] Mr. Moore and his co-accused broke into a residence where a couple resided. Mr. Moore kicked and threatened the female occupant, leaving a large bruise on the right side of her body and legs. He used a pillow to try and suffocate her to stop her from

screaming. He called her a bitch and threatened to kill her if she did not stop screaming. Mr. Moore did not use a weapon. Mr. Moore had a criminal record with one robbery conviction, but had received sentences of time served. The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of eight years, less pretrial custody, for a global sentence of six years. [ 41 ] In Moore , the court comments that the various cases to which they had been referred appeared to establish a range of between six and 13 years for home invasion cases.

The court reminds sentencing judges that the total sentence will depend on the degree of violence involved, the offences committed in the invaded premises, and the extent of the offender's involvement. [ 42 ] The Crown also relies on the earlier Court of Appeal case in R. v. Bernier , 2003 BCCA 134 , which suggested a range for home invasion cases of five to eight years. In that case, Mr. Bernier masterminded the home invasion but did not participate in it. A trial sentence of 14 years was reduced to six years on appeal. Mr.

Bernier was 21 years old at the time of his sentencing and had a prior criminal record. [ 43 ] Also relied on by the Crown is R. v. D.A.W. , 2002 BCCA 336 , in which the accused and an accomplice broke into the home of an elderly couple demanding money. The accused brandished a knife. The female was sexually assaulted by the accused's accomplice. The accused had a lengthy history of substance abuse. After trial, he was sentenced to ten years which was upheld on appeal. [ 44 ] Finally, the Crown relies on four decisions of the B.C. Supreme Court: R. v. Ridgeway , 2017 BCSC 1472 ; R. v.

Ertmoed , 2016 BCSC 344 ; R. v. Steinhauer , 2016 BCSC 1322 ; and R. v. Anderson , 2014 BCSC 1519 . All involved offenders who had been convicted for various offences arising from home invasions. I have considered them all. [ 45 ] Ridgeway involved a guilty plea. The home invasion involved the use of a firearm. Mr. Ridgeway had a lengthy criminal record, including sexual assaults, uttering threats, and breaking and entering. Mr.

Ridgeway was sentenced to a global sentence of eight years in prison. [ 46 ] In Ertmoed , a home was targeted for the specific purpose of stealing handguns, which was considered an aggravating factor. The offender knew the victim's son, the 24-year-old offender had a drug problem but no criminal record at the time of the offence. He was convicted of offences afterwards. The victim was an elderly woman whose hands and feet were bound and whose mouth was taped. The offender was sentenced to a global sentence of seven years. [ 47 ] In Steinhauer , the offender was 27 with an extensive criminal record.

At the time of the offence, he was on parole for robbery. Two offenders broke into the home, one carrying an imitation firearm, the other bear spray. Mr. Steinhauer received a global sentence of ten years. [ 48 ] In Anderson , the home invasion involved three co-accused entering the victim's home while masked. The male victim was assaulted and the three women were forced to lie down on the floor. Gratuitous violence was involved. The offender Mr. Kelly had a criminal record and was 25 at the time of the offence.

He was sentenced to a global sentence of six years. [ 49 ] In contrast to the cases relied on by the Crown, the defence relies on R. v. Mariash , 2016 BCSC 759 , in which the offender pled guilty to a robbery arising from a home invasion. The offender and two others had participated in the invasion, although the offender's involvement was more limited than that of her two companions. Ms. Mariash distracted the homeowner so that her companions could confine him. She then assisted in gathering the stolen items from the home. Ms.

Mariash had a longstanding addiction problem, but between her arrest and sentencing she had taken steps to deal with her addiction. She was employed at a rehabilitation facility and was in a healthy romantic relationship. She had also taken responsibility for her actions and had cooperated with the police in their investigation of her companions. [ 50 ] The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day or a non-custodial sentence which included 75 community work hours. The defence sought a suspended sentence of two to three years or a 90-day intermittent sentence to be served on weekends.

Justice Fitzpatrick noted that the offence itself was an aggravating factor, but the fact that Ms. Mariash had not been involved in the planning was a mitigating factor. [ 51 ] Ms. Mariash was sentenced to a 90-day intermittent sentence. [ 52 ] The defence also relies on R. v. Marks , 2016 BCCA 480 , in which the Court of Appeal upheld a 12-month sentence of incarceration and two years' probation for an 18-year-old offender who, after a guilty plea, was convicted of robbery for stealing cigarettes from a gas station while brandishing an imitation weapon.

The trial judge had taken into account protection of the public and deterrence, given the violent nature of the offence, of a vulnerable employee at a gas station. [ 53 ] Finally, the defence relies on R. v. Hockley , 2013 BCSC 113 , in which the offenders entered a residence and assaulted a person who owed money to one of them. The offenders were convicted of breaking and entering and assaulting the victim. The offenders carried weapons. One had the shaft of a hockey stick, the other a portion of a shovel. Both were wearing gloves. [ 54 ] Both the accused struck the complainant.

Although he was treated at the hospital, he was released without serious injuries. There was considerable disparity between the Crown and the defence as to an appropriate sentence. The Crown relied on the seriousness of unlawful entry into an occupied dwelling. The defence emphasized the absence of criminal records. [ 55 ] The offenders were sentenced to 90-day intermittent sentences and one year of probation. Both offenders had a history of steady employment, good community support, and neither had a criminal record or was involved in a criminal lifestyle.

Justice Bracken determined that denunciation and deterrence were important sentencing factors but, despite concluding that a jail sentence was required, given the seriousness of the offence, long penitentiary sentences were not required, he said, given the circumstances of the offence and the accused. [ 56 ] A review of these cases relied on by both the Crown and the defence indicates that the range of sentence for home invasions depends on the nature and the extent of the offender's involvement, the use of a firearm or weapon, the extent of the violence, and the

offender's criminal record. In some cases, the reason for the home invasion or the motive for it was also taken into account. The cases are, however, consistent in their conclusion that in these types of offences, the paramount sentencing consideration is deterrence and denunciation, given that home invasions violate the safety and security of a person's home. [ 57 ] This case presents a sentencing dilemma in which I must consider that the offences for which Mr. Laramee has been convicted are serious, requiring a focus on general and specific denunciation and deterrence, and yet Mr.

Laramee is young and is an individual who has no prior involvement with the courts or the police, suggesting that there is a strong chance that he can be rehabilitated. [ 58 ] As I have said, ranges are guidelines not rules. As Justice Prowse, with Justice Levine concurring, wrote at paras. 73 -74 of Bernier : [73] …This Court does not set "minimum and maximum sentences" which it is "the duty" of trial judges to fit their sentences within, or have the sentence declared unfit.

Rather, this Court suggests a range of sentences for similar offences and similarly situated offenders, drawn largely from its own prior decisions, supplemented, in some instances, by decisions of trial judges. These authorities are either provided by counsel, or are derived from other authorities which have been summarized in earlier decisions. [74] This system of establishing ranges is imperfect.

Counsel may not provide the Court with all relevant authorities; some of the authorities provided may reflect offences or offenders that are not truly similar; the authorities may be dated, or from jurisdictions where the particular crime is a greater or lesser problem; the authorities may define the relevant crime too broadly, or too narrowly; the authority may simply be anomalous. Because of these imperfections, and more importantly, because sentencing is an inherently subjective and individual process, ranges suggested by this Court are simply that — suggestions. They are guidelines, not rules.

They are not, nor could they be, mandatory minimum and maximum sentences which demand compliance by trial judges. [ 59 ] I agree that sentencing is an individualized process, but the Code provides that, as the sentencing judge, I must consider certain factors, the most important of which is set out in s. 718 of the Code .

That is, to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences, to separate offenders from society where necessary, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 60 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing, proportionality, is codified in s. 718(1) of the Code .

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 61 ] The principle of parity is also important. What that means is that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in like circumstances. [ 62 ] Section 718(2)(

a) also requires me to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offender or the offence, and I turn now to those specific aggravating and mitigating factors as they apply to this case. [ 63 ] Starting with aggravating factors, s. 348.1 of the Code provides that it is an aggravating circumstance on sentence where a robbery was committed in relation to a dwelling house and the offender either knew or was reckless as to whether the home was occupied and violence was used or threatened. In this case, Mr. Laramee was reckless as to whether the condominium was occupied.

He acknowledged, during cross-examination, that he thought it was possible that there would be occupants in the condominium. [ 64 ] Although Mr. Laramee did not use a weapon, and I accepted that he had not known of the concealed hammer carried by his companion prior to entering the condominium, he nonetheless participated in a home invasion in which a weapon was used and he himself assaulted both C.P. and C.B. with his fists. He prevented both young women from leaving after they attempted to call for help. [ 65 ] The motivation for the crime was for robbery of cash from a safe. The robbery was planned by Mr.

Laramee's companions, but Mr. Laramee knew he was there to rob C.V. Mr. Laramee masked his face in an attempt to conceal his identity. Despite C.P. telling Mr. Laramee that he was suffocating her, Mr. Laramee continued to hold her down. All three victims were traumatized by the ordeal and it must have been terrifying. Although not inflicted by Mr. Laramee, C.V. suffered a serious blow to his head requiring stitches, and C.P. was bruised and cut. [ 66 ] Turning now to mitigating factors. When the neighbours and the police arrived, Mr. Laramee made no attempt to flee and was compliant and non-confrontational.

While I did not conclude that he had made out the defence of duress, it was clear on the evidence that Mr. Laramee was influenced in his conduct by his two companions. He demonstrated that he was a follower, not a leader, as his grandmother has described him. [ 67 ] Mr. Laramee was not involved in planning the home invasion and I accepted that he first learned of it when the car arrived outside the condominium. He believed he was going on a beer run. He had not purchased the gloves or mask, nor was C.V. known to him. [ 68 ] Before the offence, Mr. Laramee was gainfully employed.

Since it, he has been living with his grandparents. He is involved in a stable romantic relationship, and complied with all of his bail conditions. It is apparent that he has the support of his extended family. Most importantly, Mr. Laramee, who is now 23 years of age, does not have a criminal record. Following his arrest, Mr. Laramee did not initially tell anyone in his family about it. He did not seek their help due to his shame. His grandmother learned that he was incarcerated from one of his friends. His grandparents then helped him to get out of jail.

He has lived with them for nearly 18 months and, according to his grandmother and the Selkirk RCMP who were supervising his bail conditions, he was always found to be present and fully compliant when he was checked. As a result, bail checks have been discontinued. [ 69 ] I accept that as he said to the probation officer, Mr. Laramee is truly remorseful for the harm he caused. He told the probation officer that he had thought a lot about it while in pretrial custody and understood from the victims' trial evidence that he had caused real harm.

Although he did not plead guilty, he did not challenge the victims' evidence about what happened.

[ 70 ] In my view, the sentence that I impose must recognize that the offences committed by Mr. Laramee were serious and require a jail sentence to emphasize to Mr. Laramee and others in the community the gravity of entering an occupied dwelling to commit a criminal offence or criminal offences. [ 71 ] I conclude, however, that in all of Mr. Laramee's circumstances, such a sentence should be below the range suggested by the Crown in this case.

Many of the cases referred to by the Crown involve offenders with extensive criminal records and for whom the possibility of rehabilitation was less likely than that I conclude in Mr. Laramee's case. [ 72 ] I do not, however, accede to the defence suggestion that time served with probation would be appropriate. The cases on which the defence relies involve unique circumstances. In Mariash , the offender was far less involved than Mr.

Laramee; in Marks , the offence did not involve a home invasion; and in Hockley , the victim and the offenders were involved in a business dispute and the offenders were established in their family and business life. [ 73 ] Taking all of these factors into account, I am now prepared to sentence Mr. Laramee. Mr. Laramee, will you please stand. [ 74 ] I am imposing a global sentence of four years.

The sentence will be as follows: with respect to the break and enter and assault, I sentence you to four years; with respect to the break and enter and robbery, I sentence you to four years; with respect to the use of a weapon in the assault, I sentence you to three years; with respect to the masking of your face, I sentence you to two years; with respect to the offence of confinement, I sentence you to three years. All sentences are to be served concurrently. [ 75 ] I must also factor into that sentence credit for your pretrial custody.

I was advised by your counsel and the Crown that pretrial credit of seven and a half months was due. Taking into account credit for that pretrial custody, your additional global sentence will be 40 and 15 days. [ 76 ] In addition, there will be a mandatory ten-year prohibition with respect to any firearm, pursuant to s.109(2) (a)(ii) of the Code , and a mandatory lifetime prohibition for prohibited or restricted firearms or weapons under s. 109(2)(

b) of the Code . [ 77 ] I also make a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code . [ 78 ] Although the Crown sought a forfeiture order, it was not clear in submissions what it is that they sought to be forfeited. I was not advised that there was any goods which were taken during the home invasion and do not make a forfeiture order. [ 79 ] I did not hear submissions on a victim fine surcharge, but believe that one is mandatory in this case. But in my view, there is nothing to be achieved or gained in the imposition of a trifling monetary order.

Therefore, I impose a $200 victim fine surcharge for each count, which is payable immediately. I find Mr. Laramee in default of payment, and I sentence him to one additional day for each court, concurrent with the sentences I have already pronounced. [ 80 ] Mr. Laramee, the offences you committed were serious ones. I have taken into account that you have not previously had any involvement with the criminal justice system and that you are truly sorry for what you did.

As a result, I have concluded that there is a strong possibility that you can rehabilitate yourself by serving this sentence and going on to lead a productive and law-abiding life with the ongoing support of your family. I wish you well. “MacNaughton J.”