R. v. Sutherland, 2023 BCSC 1990

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Sutherland, 2023 BCSC 1990 Date: 20231019 Docket: 36842-2 Registry: Fort St. John Rex v. Shane Vernon Sutherland Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Warren Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: M.R. Blow Counsel for the Accused: C. Elden S.E. Hiscock Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Fort St. John, B.C. October 18, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Fort St. John, B.C. October 19, 2023 Introduction [ 1 ] On what was to be the first day of the trial, Mr.

Sutherland pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of his spouse, Amanda Black, on February 8, 2021. This crime was horrifically brutal, tragic, and senseless. The extreme family violence left the young child of Ms. Black and Mr. Sutherland without their mother and essentially without their father as well. It caused and continues to cause profound pain for Ms. Black's family and friends. Mr. Sutherland will spend much of the prime of his life in prison.

The lives of his own family members have been forever changed. [ 2 ] A conviction for second degree murder carries with it a mandatory life sentence, meaning that even if Mr. Sutherland is eventually released from prison on parole, he will remain under some form of official control for the rest of his life. The only substantive question to be answered today is how long he must remain in prison before he is eligible to apply for parole. The Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [ Code ] sets that period at between ten and 25 years. [ 3 ] Whether Mr.

Sutherland actually obtains parole at a future date is a decision for the Parole Board of Canada to make when they assess his suitability for release. When Mr. Sutherland is finally before the Parole Board seeking release, the onus will be on him to establish that he does not represent a danger to the public and that his continued incarceration is no longer necessary. [ 4 ] The Crown and defence have presented a joint submission on sentence which proposes a period of parole ineligibility of ten years.

The principal issue is whether I should accede to that submission. [ 5 ] My reasons will address the following topics. First, I will outline the circumstances of the offence. Next, I will review the impact on the family and friends of Ms. Black, the circumstances of the offender, and the sentencing position of the Crown and the defence. I will then begin my analysis, starting with the governing Code provisions, moving on to the aggravating and mitigating factors, and then giving my decision. Finally, I will impose sentence, including the ancillary sentencing orders that are mandatory in this case.

Circumstances of the Offence [ 6 ] Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Black were common-law partners and the biological parents of one child, J. At the time of the murder, they lived together with J. in a townhouse in Fort St. John (the “Residence"). [ 7 ] By February 8, 2021, the relationship between Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Black had deteriorated and was in the process of breaking down. [ 8 ] Ms. Black spent much of the day of February 8, 2021, with her friend, Erica Schulenburg. J., who was then 18 months old, was at daycare and Mr. Sutherland was at work. [ 9 ] Ms. Black and Ms.

Schulenburg picked up J. at daycare at about 4:30 p.m. and then they picked up Mr. Sutherland at work. They all went back to the Residence, arriving at about 5:00 p.m.

[ 10 ] Ms. Black and Ms. Schulenburg then went grocery shopping. They returned to the Residence at about 7:10 p.m. Mr. Sutherland helped Ms. Black carry the groceries into the house. Ms. Schulenburg stayed in the car and waited for Ms. Black to return as they had plans to go out again. [ 11 ] At about 7:26 p.m., Ms. Schulenburg phoned Ms. Black. Ms. Black answered the call and indicated that she would be right out. She never did come out of the Residence. Very shortly after that call, Mr. Sutherland killed her.

He struck her with a spike axe numerous times on her head and face, and he stabbed her with a knife many times. In doing this, he meant to cause her death. [ 12 ] At the time of the killing, J. was in a crib in a bedroom inside the Residence. [ 13 ] After striking Ms. Black, Mr. Sutherland phoned his mother and told her he had killed Ms. Black. His mother called 9-1-1. Mr. Sutherland also called his father and told him that he had killed Ms. Black. [ 14 ] The police arrived at the Residence within minutes of the 9-1-1 call. They found Ms.

Black's body lying near the front of the Residence, with a plastic bag over her head. An axe handle was on her chest, having separated from the axe head at some point. The axe head was lodged in her skull. [ 15 ] Mr. Sutherland was arrested. [ 16 ] The post-mortem examination of Ms. Black's body disclosed multiple horrific injuries to her head, chest, and hands, including 12 chop wounds to her head and seven stab wounds to her chest. The nature of the injuries indicates that Mr. Sutherland killed Ms. Black in a state of extreme anger. [ 17 ] Dr.

Johann Brink, a forensic psychiatrist, was retained by the defence to conduct a psychiatric assessment of Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland told Dr. Brink that during an argument in the moments prior to the murder, Ms. Black revealed that she was having an affair and she threatened to leave with J. which she had done before. He told Dr. Brink that this caused him to lose control and triggered the violence that immediately followed. I wish to emphasize that in noting this, I am not making any finding that what Mr. Sutherland told Dr. Brink is true, and I am not implying that Ms.

Black bore any responsibility for what happened to her. As I will explain later, what Mr. Sutherland told Dr. Brink in this regard merely has some bearing on the weight that should be given to Mr. Sutherland's guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Victim Impacts [ 18 ] Victim impact statements were provided by 12 of Ms. Black's family members and friends.

These included her mother, Diana Reddick, her father, Rick Black, her sisters, Jessica Savard and Jennifer Scott, her grandmother Linda Black, her aunt Michele Black, her uncle Chris Pady, and her friends, Erica Schulenburg, Amanda Simmonds, Talus Skafte, Kasey Salter, and McKayla Ingram. Ms. Reddick, Ms. Savard, and Ms. Schulenburg read their statements out in court and the pain they continue to suffer as a result of this crime was palpable. The other statements were read into the record by Crown counsel. [ 19 ] It is apparent from the victim impact statements that Ms.

Black had a positive influence on the lives of many people. She was described in terms that emphasized her compassion, loyalty, dedication, colourful personality, and sense of fun. She was clearly a much loved daughter, sister, granddaughter, niece, and friend. [ 20 ] The victims spoke of the deep, profound pain and emotional trauma caused to them by the loss of Ms. Black, their inability to come to terms with the senselessness of her death, and their anger that it has happened.

They spoke of their ongoing suffering, which has included sadness, depression, and other psychological symptoms, self-isolation, loss of hope, sleeplessness, and nightmares. Some spoke of their need for counselling and about concrete impacts on their ability to work, study, and care for their own families. Several said that the emotional harm they have suffered and continue to suffer stems not only from the death of Ms. Black, but also the horrific manner of her death, and their knowledge of the impact this will have on J. [ 21 ] These victim impact statements provide a stark picture of the terrible toll that Mr.

Sutherland's actions have taken. Circumstances of the Offender [ 22 ] Mr. Sutherland was born on December 17, 1993. He is 29 years old and was 27 years old at the time of the offence. At that time, he was employed full-time as a tire technician at Kal Tire. Since his arrest, he has been detained in custody at the Prince George Regional Correctional Centre (“PGRCC”). [ 23 ] Mr. Sutherland described to Dr. Brink a happy early home life, with his parents and older sister living outside of Fort St. John, but he said he became less happy from about age 11.

He had been home schooled until grade 7 and was socially isolated. He was placed in a Christian school in grade 7, where he was socially awkward and bullied. He was repeatedly sexually assaulted by the only boy he considered to be a friend. He became angry, resentful, anxious, and depressed. [ 24 ] Mr. Sutherland was transferred to another school in grade 8. He began to display behavioural problems. He felt resentful and angry as he tried, unsuccessfully, to develop age-appropriate friendships. He was showing signs of mental health issues and began to see psychologists and psychotherapists. [ 25 ] Mr.

Sutherland became rebellious and oppositional at home. He described angry outbursts to Dr. Brink. By grade 10, he moved out due to the mounting conflict with his parents. He then spent three years couch-surfing or living on the streets and ingesting a variety of drugs. His parents maintained contact with him and extended an open invitation for him to return home, provided he adhere to certain conditions. He eventually accepted that invitation and moved home.

[26] When he was 17, Mr. Sutherland started working at a gas station. He found that job stressful and was fired after an angry outburstduring which he smashed a display cabinet. He was subsequently hired at Kal Tire where, as noted, he worked until his arrest. [27] Mr. Sutherland made several suicide attempts as a teen and also into adulthood. He began taking anti-depressants by age 16. Hestopped taking them for a period, but he is currently medicated for anxiety and depression. During his interview with Dr.

Brink inSeptember 2023, he acknowledged persistent, albeit passive, thoughts of suicide. [28] Prior to his relationship with Ms. Black, Mr. Sutherland was in a relationship with another woman. They had a daughter togetherwho was apprehended by the Ministry of Children and Families. The child was later returned to the mother. Mr. Sutherland told Dr.Brink he does not have contact with that child. [29] Mr. Sutherland met Ms. Black when he was 19 years old. Over time, their relationship became intimate and they moved intogether. By February 8, 2021, they were having frequent arguments, often about Ms.

Black's alleged infidelity and parenting style.According to Mr. Sutherland, in November 2020, that is a few months before the murder, Ms. Black went to Alberta to meet another manand took J. with her, without his consent. [30] Mr. Sutherland has no record of previous convictions. [31] Each of Mr. Sutherland's parents wrote a letter of support for Mr. Sutherland. They have maintained contact with him since hisarrest. Both his parents said that he has expressed remorse for killing Ms. Black to them on many occasions.

They say they arecommitted to supporting him to the extent they can while he is in custody and also in the future when he is eventually released. [32] Mr. Sutherland addressed the court. He expressed remorse and apologized to Ms. Black, J., Ms. Black's family, his own family,and to the wider community. He appears to understand the gravity of his actions.

The Joint Submission of Crown and Defence [33] The Crown and defence agree that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility is ten years. [34] The term “joint submission” refers to a situation where the Crown and defence come to an agreement that, in return for a guiltyplea, the Crown will join the defence in recommending a sentence to the court. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Anthony-Cook,2016 SCC 43 , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 noted the substantial benefits that joint submissions provide to our criminal justice system. [35] Justice Moldaver, for the Court, wrote: [1] Resolution discussions between Crown and defence counsel are not only commonplace in the criminal justice system, they areessential.

Properly conducted, they permit the system to function smoothly and efficiently. [2] Joint submissions on sentence — that is, when Crown and defence counsel agree to recommend a particular sentence to thejudge, in exchange for the accused entering a plea of guilty — are a subset of resolution discussions. They are both an accepted andacceptable means of plea resolution. They occur every day in courtrooms across this country and they are vital to the efficient operationof the criminal justice system. As this Court said in R. v.

Nixon . . . not only do joint submissions “help to resolve the vast majority ofcriminal cases in Canada”, but “in doing so, [they] contribute to a fair and efficient criminal justice system” . . . . [36] Despite these benefits, joint submissions are not sacrosanct; they must still be approved by the court. However, the SupremeCourt of Canada in Anthony-Cook emphasized that a joint submission may be rejected by the court only in narrow circumstances; that is,only where the proposed sentence “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the publicinterest”: para. 32.

Put another way, a joint submission may only be rejected where the proposed sentence would be viewed as abreakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system by reasonable and informed persons aware of all the relevant circumstances,including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions: para. 34. [37] The Crown outlined the general principles of sentencing and those relating to parole eligibility in particular. The Crownhighlighted the spousal relationship between Mr. Sutherland and Ms. Black, the fact the murder was committed in Ms.

Black's ownhome, the fact that J. was present in the home at the time, the use of the knife and axe, and the horrific and extensive injuries inflicted onMs. Black as aggravating circumstances. The Crown identified the guilty plea which achieved certainty by guaranteeing a conviction forsecond degree murder and the associated imposition of a life sentence as a mitigating circumstance. [38] Crown counsel noted, correctly, that the parole ineligibility range for second degree murder is broad.

The Crown also noted thatin several cases involving brutal spousal murder in British Columbia, a period of between 12 and 15 years of parole ineligibility has beenimposed, but that there are also cases where ten years has been imposed, even where there were aggravating features similar to thosepresent here. [39] Defence counsel adopted the Crown's submissions on the appropriate sentence and made some additional points. [40] The defence characterized the guilty plea as a significantly mitigating factor. The defence submits that Dr. Brink's reportdemonstrates that Mr.

Sutherland had a potentially viable defence of provocation which, if successful, would have reduced theconviction from murder to manslaughter, thereby eliminating the prospect of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Based on whatMr. Sutherland told Dr. Brink about his own personal history and the words exchanged between him and Ms. Black just prior to themurder, Dr. Brink expressed an opinion supportive of a provocation defence. Thus, provocation was a potentially viable defence and aconviction for second degree murder was not inevitable. In these circumstances, the defence submits that Mr.

Sutherland's choice toplead guilty is an extremely mitigating factor. [41] The defence characterized Mr. Sutherland's time in custody as “hard time” because he has been held in protective custody since

March 2021. Defence counsel advises that this means he is subject to restrictions that other inmates do not have to bear, including aprohibition on “mixing” with inmates in the general population and limitations on time spent outside his cell, the activities he is allowedto engage in, and his access to educational and rehabilitative programs.

Defence counsel submits that it is well-recognized that time spentin protective custody is generally more onerous than time spent in the general population, and this should be viewed as a mitigatingfactor. [42] The defence identified as additional mitigating circumstances the lack of a criminal record, Mr. Sutherland's relatively youngage, the support from Mr. Sutherland's family, Mr. Sutherland's remorse, and the fact that he was cooperative and compliant with thepolice after he committed the offence. [43] In addition to imposing sentence, the defence has asked me to recommend that Mr.

Sutherland be classified to an institution otherthan a maximum security institution to commence serving his life sentence. The Crown acknowledges the ability of the defence to makethis request, but takes no position on whether such a recommendation ought to be granted in this case. [44] Counsel referred to the following spousal murder cases as comparators: • R. v. Wu, 2017 BCSC 2271 (a 12-year parole ineligibility period imposed following a jury conviction); • R. v. Friesen, 2017 BCSC 702 (a 12-year parole ineligibility period imposed following a jury conviction); • R. v.

Bona, 2021 BCSC 532 (an 11-year parole ineligibility period imposed following a jury conviction); • R. v. Ghiorghita, 2017 BCSC 1636 (a ten-year parole ineligibility period imposed following a judge alone trial); • R. v. Waraich, 2008 BCSC 919 (a ten-year parole ineligibility period imposed following a jury conviction); and • R. v. Thomson, 2019 BCSC 365 (a guilty plea with a joint submission for a ten-year period of parole ineligibility that wasapproved by the court). Analysis General Principles [45] By virtue of s. 235(1) and s. 745(

c) of the Code, a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for at least tenyears is mandatory upon a conviction of second degree murder.

Section 745.4 of the Code requires that the sentencing judge considersubstituting a longer period of parole ineligibility than the minimum. In doing so, the court is directed to have regard for the character ofthe offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and any recommendation from ajury.

There is no jury in this case, but I have reviewed the other considerations. [46] A decision establishing a period of parole ineligibility on a conviction of second degree murder is part of a sentence such that thegeneral sentencing principles contained in the Code apply: R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23 at paras. 266–267.

Those general sentencingprinciples include the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, the prospects for rehabilitation of the offender, the principle that asentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and that similar periods ofparole ineligibility ought to be imposed in similar circumstances. [47] As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility will be ten years, but an increase in the period from the statutory minimumdoes not require proof of “unusual circumstances”: R. v. Shropshire, (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227 at paras. 26–27 and31–33.

However, it generally requires that there be some particularly aggravating feature: R. v. Cerra, 2004 BCCA 594 at para. 17. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [48]

Section 718.2 of the Code sets out some of the sentencing principles I have already mentioned, but it also states that the sentence(or here the parole ineligibility period) ought to be increased or reduced (although not below the minimum), to account for any relevantaggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Aggravating Factors [49] I find the aggravating factors in this case to be as follows.

a) Ms. Black was Mr. Sutherland's spouse and the mother of his child. It is a statutory aggravating factor by reason of s. 718.2(a)(ii) ofthe Code that the murder occurred in the context of a domestic relationship. Mr. Sutherland's resort to extreme domestic violence was asevere betrayal of trust;

b) Ms. Black was murdered inside her home, a place where she was entitled to feel safe and secure;

c) Mr. Sutherland committed the attack while J. was present in the home. While the evidence suggests J. could not see the attackunfolding, it is possible they heard it. We do not know for sure because J. was so young when it happened. Regardless, I have no doubtthat J. will experience lifelong trauma as a result of this crime; and

d) The attack was particularly brutal, involving the use of a knife and pick-axe to inflict horrific, horrific injuries to Ms. Black. From the

post-mortem report, it is apparent that the murder involved persistent, determined, ferocious violence. Mitigating Factors [ 50 ] That Mr. Sutherland does not have a criminal record weighs in his favour on my consideration of his own circumstances and the objectives of sentencing. [ 51 ] I do not view Mr. Sutherland's cooperation with the police after the murder to be a mitigating factor, but this weighs in his favour to some extent on my consideration of the circumstances of the offence. [ 52 ] I do not view Mr. Sutherland's time in custody as a mitigating factor.

The defence argues that he has been held in protective custody through no fault of his own. As I will explain in more detail in a moment, the information before me does not provide an adequate explanation of why he has been held in protective custody or even that it has been particularly hard on him. [ 53 ] Mr. Sutherland's age, 27 years old at the time of the offence, cannot, in my view, be given much weight as a mitigating factor. At the time of the murder, he had several years of adult life experience.

Similarly, the fact that he has the support of his parents is not materially mitigating when weighed against the horrific circumstances of this offence. [ 54 ] In my view, there are two materially mitigating circumstances. [ 55 ] The first and by far the most significant is the guilty plea. I agree with the defence counsel's submission that, even though it came late in the day, it is not a “hollow” guilty plea as would be the case if a conviction for second degree murder was virtually inevitable. Mr.

Sutherland's guilty plea represents the loss of a potentially viable provocation defence that, if successful, would have reduced the conviction to manslaughter. I am not commenting here on the strength of the provocation defence, but Dr. Brink's report gives it an air of reality. The guilty plea also spared Ms. Black's family and friends from having to endure the trial and spared witnesses from testifying in court, which may have been further traumatizing for them. [ 56 ] Mr. Sutherland's expression of remorse is also a mitigating factor. His words and address to the court appeared to me to be genuine.

He has repeatedly expressed remorse to his parents, and his remorse was further expressed through his guilty plea. Decision [ 57 ] Murder is the most serious of all offences. Ms. Black's murder was particularly brutal and was committed by her spouse, the father of her child, in her own home with her child present. At the same time, the guilty plea is a mitigating factor that weighs substantially in this case and, in addition, Mr.

Sutherland's expression of remorse should be given some weight. [ 58 ] Of the spousal murder cases referred to me by counsel as comparators, I found Wu , Friesen, Bona , and Thomson to be the most helpful. [ 59 ] In Ghiorghita where a ten-year period of parole ineligibility was imposed, there was evidence that the offender was in a state of extreme confusion and distress at the time of the murder, and he had very promising rehabilitation prospects. I do not have the evidence in this case to say the same about Mr.

Sutherland. [ 60 ] In Waraich , the ten-year period was recommended by the jury and this seemed to have been given significant weight by the sentencing judge. There is no jury recommendation here. [ 61 ] In Wu and Friesen , parole eligibility was set at 12 years, in Bona it was set at 11 years, and in Thomson at ten years. In Thomson , this was following a guilty plea and a joint submission. All of these cases involve factual circumstances that are strikingly similar to those present here.

The important differences between this case and Wu , Friesen and Bona are the guilty plea and the joint submission, which were not features in those cases. [ 62 ] Absent the guilty plea and the joint submission, I would have set parole ineligibility in this case at no less than 12 years. As I have already noted, this murder was exceptionally heinous and Mr.

Sutherland's moral culpability is high. [ 63 ] However, as already noted, the Supreme Court of Canada in Anthony-Cook directed that joint submissions not be rejected unless “the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest”.

The Court went even further by saying a joint submission should not be rejected unless it is: [34] … so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable, informed persons aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system has broken down. [ 64 ] Given the other spousal murder cases that I have referred to and the mitigating factor of the guilty plea which is present here, it cannot be said that the joint submission for a ten-year period of parole ineligibility offends that standard which I am bound to apply.

Accordingly, I accept the joint submission. [ 65 ] As already noted, the defence has asked me to recommend that Mr. Sutherland be classified to an institution other than a maximum security institution to commence serving his life sentence. Defence counsel identified the bases for this request as including the following: • Mr. Sutherland is socially awkward and has been bullied by peers for most of his life;

• he is at risk of potential harm within the general prison population, as evidenced by the fact that he has been held in protective custody; and • he has significant mental health issues and continues to experience suicidal ideation. [ 66 ] R. v.

Graham , 2022 BCSC 1827 , was cited as an example of a case where this kind of recommendation was made by the sentencing judge. [ 67 ] I am not persuaded that I should make the recommendation in this case. [ 68 ] The sentencing judge in Graham had what she characterized as “thorough information addressing the personal circumstances of the offender, as outlined in two psychiatric reports and the rest of the materials filed at the sentencing hearing”. The two reports in question were written by two forensic psychiatrists, Dr. Lohrasbe and Dr. Tomita. I do not have such thorough information.

From what I can deduce from reading the Graham decision, the psychiatric report of Dr. Brink is much more narrowly focused than were the reports of Dr. Lohrasbe and Dr. Tomita. It appears there is a good reason for this – Dr. Brink was specifically asked to conduct an assessment for the purpose of assisting in determining whether Mr. Sutherland “had been subject to provocation”. [ 69 ] In my view, the information before me is not sufficient for me to conclude that Mr. Sutherland was bullied for most of his life. Dr. Brink noted that Mr.

Sutherland reported that when he transferred schools in grade 8, he became a bully himself. [ 70 ] The information before me is insufficient to conclude that Mr. Sutherland is at risk of potential harm within the general prison population. [ 71 ] The staff at the PGRCC told Crown counsel that Mr. Sutherland has exhibited good behaviours and has had no incidents while in custody, yet he has been held in protective custody since March 2021. Defence counsel submits that the only inference that can be drawn from that information is that Mr.

Sutherland is at risk of potential harm if placed in the general prison population. I am not at all confident that this is the only inference that can be drawn. I simply do not know why he has been placed in protective custody. I do note that Dr. Brink reports Mr.

Sutherland having told him that he socializes with fellow inmates, and maintains good relationships with the correctional staff; he sleeps well; his appetite and energy levels are good; and he spends his days reading, watching TV, playing the guitar, and working out in the gym. [ 72 ] Finally, the information before me is insufficient to conclude that Mr. Sutherland has significant mental health issues. Dr. Brink diagnosed avoidant, dependent personality traits, other specified depressive disorder, and possible cannabis use disorder in enforced remission.

However, no doubt because his assessment was focused on provocation, Dr. Brink did not elaborate on those diagnoses or express a view as to their significance. Imposition of Sentence [ 73 ] Mr. Sutherland, please stand. [ 74 ] You have pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of Amanda Black. For the reasons I have given, I sentence you to imprisonment for life without eligibility of parole until you have served ten years of your sentence. [ 75 ] In addition, there are two ancillary orders that are mandatory in this case:

a) There will be what is called a DNA order. Put more formally, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code , there will be an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples for the purpose of obtaining DNA for testing; and

b) Pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Code , there will be a ten-year prohibition against possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance, and a lifetime prohibition against possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition. [ 76 ] You may be seated. [ 77 ] Pursuant to s. 743.2 of the Code , I direct that a transcript of these reasons be prepared and then sent to the Correctional Service of Canada together with the documents that were marked as exhibits at this sentencing hearing. [ 78 ] Those are my reasons for sentence.

Are there any questions, counsel? [ 79 ] CNSL S. HISCOCK: No, thank you, Justice. [ 80 ] CNSL M. BLOW: No, Justice, no questions. I would simply ask the court to direct that forfeiture should be entered by consent pursuant to s. 490 and 491 in due course. [ 81 ] THE COURT: Yes, I will make that direction. [ 82 ] CNSL M. BLOW: Thank you. [ 83 ] CNSL S. HISCOCK: Yes, so perhaps we could just get some guidance from the court in terms of how you would like to achieve that. There's not going to be any difficulty with respect to the forfeiture order. We are not seeking return of any items.

My friend and I could just do a draft order and submit it to the court through the registry, and it can be done by way of desk order if the court is content to do it that way.

[ 84 ] THE COURT: Yes, that makes sense. You can proceed that way. [ 85 ] CNSL M. BLOW: Thank you. [ 86 ] THE COURT: Thank you, we will adjourn. “Warren J.”