R. v. Parker, 2023 BCSC 2259

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Parker, 2023 BCSC 2259 Date: 20231208 Docket: 181113-2 Registry: Victoria Rex v. Christopher John Bruce Parker Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brongers Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: J.A. Gillings Counsel for the Defence: N. Brooks Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Victoria, B.C. November 16 & 17, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. December 8, 2023 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On May 23, 2023, I found Christopher Parker guilty of aggravated assault of Ronald Oster, contrary to s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 . Mr.

Parker stabbed Mr. Oster in the back of the neck, causing serious injury and impairment. [ 2 ] Sentencing submissions were presented by Crown and defence on November 16 and 17, 2023. There is a considerable disparity between their positions. Counsel for the Crown seeks a sentence of seven years of imprisonment. Counsel for the defence proposes instead a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, as well as a three-year probation order. The Facts Circumstances of the Offence [ 3 ] In late 2020, Mr.

Oster was living in a housing facility for vulnerable people in Victoria managed by the PHS Community Services Society (“PHS”). Mr. Oster had been allowing Mr. Parker and his girlfriend to share his unit, contrary to PHS rules. Concerned about the status of his housing, Mr. Oster asked Mr. Parker and his girlfriend to leave. They were reluctant to do so. There was also tension between Mr. Parker and Mr. Oster over a drug debt. A couple of days prior to the offence, Mr. Parker threatened Mr. Oster by touching a knife to his cheek. [ 4 ] On November 13, 2020, Mr.

Oster left his room to go shopping after having another difficult conversation with Mr. Parker and his girlfriend. When Mr. Oster returned home in the evening, there was no one in the room. It was very messy and some items were missing. Mr. Oster assumed that Mr. Parker and his girlfriend had finally decided to leave, and had taken their belongings with them. [ 5 ] Mr. Oster also received a text message from Mr. Parker claiming that Mr. Oster owed Mr. Parker $100 for a drug debt. Mr. Oster felt that he only owed $30, but was nevertheless willing to pay Mr. Parker $100 to settle the issue. Mr. Oster told Mr.

Parker that he could come to Mr. Oster's suite in order to pick up the money. Mr. Oster was also hoping to buy more drugs from Mr. Parker when he dropped by. [ 6 ] Around 9:00 p.m., Mr. Oster was told by his immediate neighbour that Mr. Parker was in her suite and wanted to see Mr. Oster. Because Mr. Oster was dealing with an unexpected visitor himself, he asked the neighbour to stall Mr. Parker for a few minutes. Following their conversation, Mr. Oster returned to his room. [ 7 ] Shortly afterwards, Mr. Oster heard a knock on his door. The next thing he knew, Mr.

Oster felt a cold and metallic object on the back of his neck. Mr. Oster described the sensation as being similar to being electrocuted, and he fell to the floor. [ 8 ] Once on the ground, Mr. Oster saw Mr. Parker lean over him. Mr. Oster then heard Mr. Parker whisper that he thought Mr. Oster had had an accident and was hurt. Mr. Oster also heard Mr. Parker say that he did not and would not do this to Mr. Oster since his is Mr. Parker's best friend. Mr. Parker also grabbed Mr. Oster and tried to pull him up from the ground. However, Mr. Oster asked Mr.

Parker to just leave him on the floor as he could not move his arms or legs and was having difficulty breathing. [ 9 ] Soon thereafter, Mr. Oster heard the voice of Mr. Parker's girlfriend encouraging Mr. Parker to leave with her, after which Mr.

Oster did not hear or see Mr. Parker again. [ 10 ] Surveillance video footage captured events that took place on the outdoor balcony walkway outside the suites occupied by Mr. Oster and his neighbour. While the video does not show what occurred inside the suites, it does show Mr. Parker roughly pushing open the door to Mr. Oster's suite and rushing inside the room. It also shows that, just prior to his entrance, Mr. Parker's right forearm is at a right angle to his body and his right hand appears to be clenched and possibly holding an object. Furthermore, the video confirms that Mr.

Parker and his girlfriend fled the scene shortly after two PHS staff members arrived to attend to Mr. Oster. [ 11 ] Further first aid was administered to Mr. Oster by paramedics, after which he was taken to Victoria General Hospital. Mr. Oster had a three-centimetre laceration on the back of his neck that was stitched up at that hospital. [ 12 ] Mr. Oster was then transported by air to Vancouver General Hospital. He was examined by Dr. Brian Kwon, a spinal surgeon. Dr. Kwon also provided expert testimony at the trial. He testified that Mr.

Oster suffered a sharp penetrating injury to his spinal cord, which was caused by some sort of sharp penetrating object, such as a knife. Circumstances of the Offender [ 13 ] At the sentencing hearing, information regarding Mr. Parker's circumstances was provided through counsel submissions and various documents. The latter include pre-sentence reports, documentation regarding Mr. Parker's previous convictions and bail conditions, and character references. [ 14 ] Mr. Parker is now 40 years old. He was 37 at the time of the offence. [ 15 ] Mr.

Parker had an unstable childhood, living alternately with his mother, his father, and foster parents. He left school in grade seven to get a job, and has worked in such industries as commercial fishing, mining, and logging. Mr. Parker has had alcohol and substance issues since he was a teenager. His drug use involved periods when he was using heroin, fentanyl, morphine, and crack cocaine. Mr. Parker is currently taking an opiate replacement to address his addiction. [ 16 ] Mr. Parker's criminal record is extensive and dates back to when he was 23 years old.

It includes numerous drug trafficking, robbery, breaches, weapons, and threats charges.

In total, he has 42 convictions, including the following that involve threats, weapons and violence: Date Offence Sentence Jan. 18, 2007 Uttering threats 1 day jail Oct. 11, 2007 Uttering threats 1 day jail, 1 year probation Dec. 6, 2007 Assault with weapon 1 day jail, 1 year probation May 1, 2009 Robbery 4 months jail Aug. 13, 2010 Assault peace officer 60 days jail Aug. 13, 2010 Assault with weapon 9 months jail, 1 year probation June 22, 2011 Assault causing bodily harm 18 months jail, 1 year probation Mar. 22, 2012 Uttering threats 6 months jail (consecutive to sentence serving) Feb. 21, 2013 Uttering threats 6 months jail Oct. 3, 2013 Carrying prohibited weapon 90 days May 7, 2021 Possess prohibited weapon 90 days conditional sentence [ 17 ] Five of these convictions are for violent offences involving weapons.

Their circumstances can be summarized as follows. [ 18 ] First, the December 6, 2007 assault with a weapon conviction arose from an incident in which Mr. Parker pushed a person to the ground, kneed and put him in a headlock. Mr. Parker was waving a large breadknife and threatened to kill the victim. [ 19 ] Second, the May 1, 2009 robbery conviction also involved a knife. Mr. Parker used it to threaten a person from whom Mr. Parker and an accomplice had demanded money. [ 20 ] Third and fourth, the August 13, 2010 convictions arose from an incident outside a bottle depot. Mr.

Parker threatened to cut open a person with a boxcutter and they then had a physical altercation during which Mr. Parker wielded a knife. A police officer intervened, and Mr. Parker assaulted him as well while resisting arrest. [ 21 ] Fifth and finally, the June 22, 2011 conviction was in respect of Mr. Parker's assault of a corrections guard while in custody. [ 22 ] As for Mr. Parker's current circumstances, he is presently on conditional release.

There is no indication that he is employed, and he is apparently in receipt of disability assistance. [ 23 ] Six written character references were submitted by the defence. [ 24 ] Two of them were prepared by the mother and two sisters of Mr. Parker's girlfriend of the past five years. They attest to how well Mr. Parker has taken care of her, and his kindness to others. The authors acknowledge that Mr. Parker comes from a challenging background, but say he has kept himself out of trouble recently. [ 25 ] One of the references was prepared by a community worker who described himself as Mr.

Parker's mentor and director of the "Re-Integration Support and Empowerment Society", although no specific information was provided about the status and function of this organization. The three remaining references are from acquaintances of Mr. Parker. The information from all four individuals is to the

effect that Mr. Parker is fundamentally a good person who is now attempting to move forward in a positive direction away from histroubled past. [26] At the sentencing, Mr. Parker was given an opportunity to address the Court directly. He said only that he was sorry for themistakes he has made. Mr. Parker said nothing specific about Mr. Oster, or the stabbing that occurred on November 13, 2020. Circumstances of the Victim [27] Mr. Oster is now 49 years old. He was 46 at the time of the offence. [28] Mr. Oster testified at trial about the injury he sustained when Mr. Parker stabbed him in the back of the neck.

He also prepared adetail victim impact statement in writing which was presented at the sentencing hearing. [29] As a result of the stabbing, Mr. Oster has Brown-Sequard Syndrome, a condition that can occur after a spinal cord injury. Itentails a loss of motor function on the side of the body closest to the injury, and a loss of sensation on the other side of the body. In Mr.Oster's case, it is the right half of his body that was most affected given the location of the stab wound. There is nothing surgical thatcan be done to help Mr. Oster, although he has regained some motor function over time. [30] Mr.

Oster spent about a month at Vancouver General Hospital, before being transferred back to Victoria General Hospital wherehe stayed for another four or five weeks after that. When Mr. Oster left Vancouver General Hospital, he could not walk and required theuse of a wheelchair. While he could use his left leg and arm more or less as he was able to before the incident, he had very limited use ofhis muscles on the right side of his body.

His limited sense of touch on the left side of his body created a risk of inadvertently sufferingburns or other injuries from the lack of a pain response to touching dangerous objects. [31] Following his discharge from hospital, Mr. Oster undertook regular physiotherapy treatments. In terms of mobility, Mr. Osterneeded to use a wheelchair to do anything outside of his room up until about a year ago. He now uses a cane, although he can walk forshort distances without support. Mr.

Oster reports that his coordination and ability to sense are improving, although he is stillexperiencing pain which he tries to manage without prescription medication. [32] With respect to the specific impact the injury has had on his life, Mr. Oster notes that daily chores are much more difficult toaccomplish in a timely manner. From tying his shoelaces to tidying his home, everything takes much longer and he requires assistance,which he finds embarrassing. He cannot make use of the trade skills he used to have, such as truck driving or operating heavyequipment, and is therefore less employable. Mr.

Oster can no longer play his guitar or engage in the sports and activities he used toenjoy, such as baseball, floor hockey, volleyball, hunting, fishing, and camping. Perhaps most poignantly, Mr. Oster says that his injuryprevented him from travelling to see his father in Eastern Canada before he passed away suddenly a few months ago. [33] Mr. Oster concluded his victim impact statement by indicating that he is still perplexed as to why Mr. Parker committed this actthat has altered his life permanently. Mr.

Oster expressed his disbelief as follows: . . .it was out of the kindness of my heart I allowed him and his girlfriend into my home because of his girlfriend being so sick withpneumonia and not charging a stitch of rent, that his funny way of thanking me was completely wrong and uncalled for [and]unprovoked and selfish. And the question of the hour that everybody wants to know is... WHY? Principles of Sentencing [34] The essential principles to be considered by the court in sentencing are set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Code. [35]

Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is: "to protect society and to contribute, along with crimeprevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions." This isdone by reference to six objectives.

They are: (1) denunciation of unlawful conduct; (2) deterrence of the offender and other personsfrom committing offences; (3) separation of offenders from society, where necessary; (4) assistance in the rehabilitation of offenders;(5) provision for reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (6) promotion of a sentence of responsibility in offendersand acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community. [36] Pursuant to s. 718.1, a sentence must also be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of theoffender. [37]

Section 718.2 describes a number of specific principles to be considered in sentencing, including that the sentence should accountfor any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Of particular note are s. 718.2(

b) and 718.2(d). The former provides thatsentences should be similar to those imposed on similar offenders committed in similar circumstances; the latter provides that an offendershould not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. [38] Sentencing is therefore a balancing exercise. No single objective trumps the others, subject to statutory provisions. A sentencingjudge's role is to determine which objectives meet the greatest weight, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender: R. v.Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, at para. 43.

Ultimately, “the overarching duty of a sentencing judge is to draw upon all the legitimateprinciples of sentencing to determine a ‘just and appropriate’ sentence which reflects the gravity of the offence committed and the moralblameworthiness of the offender: R. v. M(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500.

Position of the Crown [39] Counsel for the Crown takes the position that the duration of Mr. Parker's sentence should be seven years, which is at the higherrange for aggravated assault. [40] The Crown says that there are eight aggravating factors in this case, namely: (

a) Mr. Parker's use of a weapon in the commissionof the crime; (

b) the level of violence that was used by Mr. Parker; (

c) the severity of the injuries suffered by Mr. Oster; (

d) that Mr.Oster was unarmed and defenceless; (

e) that the assault on Mr. Oster was unprovoked; (

f) that Mr. Parker was on bail at the time of theoffence; (

g) that Mr. Parker fled the scene and did not seek medical assistance for Mr. Oster; and (

h) Mr. Parker's prior criminal history. [41] The Crown also says that there are no mitigating factors in this case. Position of the Defence [42] Counsel for the defence does not dispute the existence of the eight aggravating factors cited by the Crown, but says that theseverity of the last two should be put into proper perspective. [43] First, Mr. Parker did not flee the scene immediately. Rather he stayed with Mr. Oster briefly until PHS staff arrived. Second,Mr. Parker's criminal history of violent offences mostly relates to the period from 2007 to 2013, after which there is a lengthy gap ofseven years.

The rest of his convictions are non-violent and indicative of someone who struggles with substance abuse. [44] Counsel for the defence also says that there are two mitigating factors in this case. First, Mr. Parker has been under restrictivebail conditions following his arrest, and there is no indication that he has breached them. Second, Mr. Parker has the support of hisgirlfriend's family, a mentor, and others who vouch that Mr. Parker has been moving away from his previous life of violence and crimetowards one that is prosocial. [45] Accordingly, counsel for the defence urges the court not to sentence Mr.

Parker to a custodial sentence. Rather, he proposes thatMr. Parker first serve a sentence of two years less one day in the community, further to a conditional sentence order under s. 742.1 of theCriminal Code, and then be subject to a three-year probation order after that. Analysis [46] The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years; s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code. [47] The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has indicated that the appropriate sentencing range for aggravated assault in thisprovince is between 16 months and six years imprisonment; R. v. Craig, 2005 BCCA 484, para. 10, citing R. v.

Johnson, ; R. v. Biln, 1999 BCCA 369; and R. v. Willier, 2005 BCCA 404. [48] At paragraph 10 of Craig, the following guidance was provided for determining a sentence within that range: In determining an appropriate sentence within this broad range, an unprovoked attack with a weapon tends to result in the imposition of asentence at the higher end while a consensual fight that has escalated with resulting injury tends to result in a sentence at the lower end. [49] The correctness of the 12-month to six-year range was also noted more recently by our Court of Appeal in R. v.

Nguyen, 2016BCCA 408, at para. 47. [50] However, there is also appellate authority to the effect that the upper range could extend to eight years or more. R. v. Hurtado,2012 BCCA 47, at para. 20 is illustrative: .Where there is unrestrained violence such as occurred here, coupled with stalking and a surprise attack, I think the lower end is morethan two years and the upper end is about eight years, with the possibility of sentencing above eight years in particularly egregiouscircumstances.

This is often a difficult offence for which to fashion an appropriate sentence and I am not attracted to a practice ofbreaking down the types of aggravated assault and suggesting a relatively narrow range for each type. Sentencing in this area is verysubjective having regard to the particular aggravating and mitigating factors which can vary greatly from case to case. [51] R. v. Tschritter, 2006 BCCA 202; R. v. Payne, 2007 BCCA 541; R. v. Woodward, 2011 BCCA 251; R. v. Larose, 2013 BCCA450; and R. v.

Heiney, 2018 BCCA 313, are to the same effect. [52] The most recent Court of Appeal authority that was brought to my attention on this point in R. v. Sesay, 2020 BCCA 41, at para.33, where it was noted: This Court has upheld sentences in the range of six to eight years for assaults causing life-altering injuries to the victim. As noted in R. v.Payne, 2007 BCCA 541 at para. 44, “sentences in the range of six to eight years for serious aggravated assaults are not uncommon”. [53] I therefore accept that the sentencing range for aggravated assault ranges from 16 months to eight years.

However, the range ismerely a guideline, and I must ensure that a proportionate sentence be given that reflects the gravity of the offence as well as the moralblameworthiness of the offender: R. v. Slizak, 2017 BCCA 279, at para. 18. [54] Counsel for the Crown and the defence cited several aggravated assault sentencing cases in their submissions, all of which I haveconsidered. Not surprisingly, none involved circumstances identical to those in the case at bar. That said, I found the following three to

be of assistance. [ 55 ] R. v. Adamec , 2021 BCSC 1832 : five years and four months sentence imposed. When the offender was 26 years old, he perpetrated a sudden and unprovoked knife attack on the victim, who had no opportunity to defend himself. The offender did nothing to help the victim and fled. The victim experienced a life-threatening puncture wound of 5.7 centimetres. He was unable to return to work and he struggles with anxiety. The offender had a criminal record, including convictions for violence and threats of violence.

However, the offender was relatively young, had letters of support from family and friends, and he apologized to the victim and his family, expressing direct remorse for his crime. [ 56 ] R. v. Sesay , 2019 BCSC 795 , rev’d BCCA 41 (appeal allowed to correct a mathematical error): six-and-a-half year sentence imposed. The 34-year-old offender sucker punched his victim in an unprovoked attack in an alley. He left the scene and made no effort to obtain medical assistance. The attack resulted in a life-altering brain injury.

The offender had an extensive criminal record including several convictions for assault-related offences, although there was a five-year gap. No weapon was used. [ 57 ] R. v. Tschritter , 2006 BCCA 202 : seven-and-a-half year sentence imposed. The 21-year-old offender perpetrated with a co- assailant an unprovoked attack on a stranger who was walking down a lane, involving punching and kicking. Nothing was done to get help for the victim, who was left unconscious and suffered serious brain damage. The offender had a criminal record that included violent offences.

He was found to pose a risk to the community and had little insight into his behaviour, although he expressed remorse. The offender's youth was considered a mitigating factor. [ 58 ] I also just became aware of the very recent aggravated assault sentencing decision rendered on November 14, 2023,in R. v. Macaskill , 2023 BCSC 2122 . It is particularly helpful given that this was also a case in which the Crown proposed a custodial sentence of between six to eight years, and the defence proposed that a conditional sentence order be issued instead.

The decision's salient points can be summarized as follows. [ 59 ] R. v. Macaskill , 2023 BCSC 2122 : four-year custodial sentence imposed. The 50-year-old offender attacked a 52-year-old Indigenous man while evicting him from a neighbouring unit in the offender's building in which the victim was squatting. After the victim apologized for trespassing and started to put on his boots to leave, the offender struck the victim in the lower leg with a metal pipe, resulting in severe injury. As the victim attempted to crawl away, the offender continued to strike him.

The victim was left cold on the ground, and did not receive help until passers-by came to assist and called first responders. The victim also suffered a skull fracture, hearing loss, and ongoing anxiety. The offender had a considerable criminal record, including six assault convictions. At the same time, the offender was residing in a recovery centre and making progress towards sobriety. He had received supporting letters from people who indicated that the offender had recently changed his demeanour and approach.

The offender had also expressed remorse for how he had treated his victim and sorrow for the harm caused to him and his family. [ 60 ] Turning to the case at bar, I agree with counsel for the Crown that all of the aggravating factors she identified are present here. [ 61 ] The most significant one is the severity of the circumstances of the offence. Mr. Parker attacked Mr. Oster with a weapon from behind, affording Mr. Oster no opportunity to defend himself. The attack was premeditated and unprovoked, and had no reasonable or logical justification. Mr. Parker also attempted to lead Mr.

Oster to believe that there had been an accident, rather than accepting responsibility for what he had done. Furthermore, Mr. Parker fled the scene, albeit after briefly attempting to assist Mr. Oster to get to his feet. [ 62 ] The assault committed by Mr. Parker on Mr. Oster involved a penetrating strike with a sharp object that ultimately struck Mr. Oster's spinal cord. It caused severe injury to Mr. Oster, which has altered his life significantly. While he has regained some mobility, it is still limited in that he cannot walk for long periods unassisted. Mr.

Oster's quality of life has been dramatically and permanently impacted by Mr. Parker's senseless act. [ 63 ] Finally, Mr. Parker has an extensive criminal history, including multiple convictions for violent offences. While I accept that there was a gap of seven years between these types of convictions and the commission of the present offence, this is a crime of personal violence for which the gap principle is of diminished utility: R. v. Lockyer , 2000 NFCA 59 , at paras. 142 to 145 . [ 64 ] With respect to mitigating factors, however, I disagree with counsel for the Crown that there are none.

As submitted by counsel for the defence, I accept that Mr. Parker's good behaviour while under restrictive bail conditions following his arrest, and the support he has from his girlfriend's family, mentor, and others are mitigating factors to be considered. This provides some indication that Mr. Parker is taking steps to refrain from violence and other antisocial actions, even if he has not shown much remorse or insight into the ongoing pain and suffering he inflicted upon Mr. Oster on November 13, 2020. [ 65 ] That said, the gravity of Mr. Parker's offence, its severe impact on Mr. Oster, and Mr.

Parker's criminal history are such that I cannot agree with counsel for the defence that a conditional sentence order would be appropriate. I have carefully considered counsel's suggestion to that effect, and reviewed the supporting authorities he urges the court to follow, notably R. v. Kawerninski , 2023 BCSC 377 , in which such an order was issued in respect of an aggravated assault conviction. [ 66 ] However, the circumstances in Kawerninski are considerably different from those that present themselves here. Mr.

Kawerninski is Indigenous and was persistently victimized by racism and bullying, most notably when he was viciously attacked by white supremacist skinheads in New Zealand. As a result, he could no longer effectively process or remember information, and had to abandon his studies. Mr. Kawerninski's criminal history was minimal. The assault he committed was not premeditated. It occurred when things escalated after Mr. Kawerninski tried to get the victim to apologize to a woman that the assault victim has allegedly abused. There was also psychiatric evidence that Mr.

Kawerninski had a degree of insight into both the harm he caused and his need to abstain from drugs and alcohol in order to avoid criminal misbehaviour in the future. No similar evidence was presented here with respect to Mr. Parker. [ 67 ] In sum, while I acknowledge that, as noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , a conditional sentence can be an appropriate sentence as it can achieve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, I do not find that it would be appropriate

for Mr. Parker. This is particularly the case since I would not otherwise impose a sentence of imprisonment of fewer than two years, as a sentence of this length is not proportionate to the gravity of Mr. Parker's offence and his degree of responsibility: R. v. Sharma , 2022 SCC 39 , at paras. 7 to 14 . [ 68 ] Instead, weighing all of the aggravating and mitigating factors just discussed, I find that a fit and just sentence for Mr. Parker is a custodial one with a duration of four years and six months. [ 69 ] Mr.

Parker, will you please stand. [ 70 ] I sentence you to imprisonment for a period of four years and six months. You have served 12 days in presentence custody and will be credited with having served the equivalent of 18 days in custody. [ 71 ] In addition, I make two ancillary orders. [ 72 ] First, you are prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition and other types of weapons in accordance with s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code . This is a lifetime prohibition. [ 73 ] Second, you will be required to provide a DNA sample in accordance with s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code .

I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice that you do so given the nature of your offence, your criminal record, and the impact that this will have on your privacy and security of the person. [ 74 ] You may be seated, Mr. Parker. [ 75 ] That concludes my reasons. Unless there are any other matters, we are adjourned. [ 76 ] CNSL N. BROOKS: Justice, this comes with a victim surcharge. Because it is an indictable, it is a $200 fine. As you will appreciate, Mr. Parker has a bit of a gap from society and that any sort of fine will impose an undue hardship on Mr. Parker.

I will ask in these circumstances that the court waive that based on those circumstances. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Gillings? [ 78 ] CNSL J. GILLINGS: I have no position on that, Justice. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Yes, I agree with submissions for the defence. [ 80 ] CNSL N. BROOKS: Thank you, Justice. [ 81 ] THE COURT: The victim surcharge will be waived. Anything further? [ 82 ] CNSL N. BROOKS: Not from defence, thank you, Justice. And thank you, my friend. [ 83 ] THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further from the Crown? [ 84 ] CNSL J. GILLINGS: No, Justice, thank you. [ 85 ] THE COURT: Thank you.

We are adjourned. “Brongers J.”