R. v. Main, 2023 BCSC 530

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Main, 2023 BCSC 530 Date: 20230106 Docket: 55357-2 Registry: Vernon Rex v. Troy Reginald Main Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Betton Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: B. Bellrichard Counsel for the Accused: D. Verdurmen Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vernon, B.C. October 19, 2022 January 6, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Vernon, B.C. January 6, 2023 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I preface my delivery of the reasons by perhaps stating the obvious but just so it is clear, I am giving these reasons soon after having received submissions.

The result is that they are neither as thorough as might otherwise be the case, nor perhaps as organized or polished as might otherwise be the case. That being said, taking more time and refining them would not in any way change my conclusions, and it is my view, without any reservation, that it is far better to deliver the result today and conclude the matters than to delay it simply for those largely aesthetic, if you would, purposes. [ 2 ] Mr. Main is before me today to be sentenced following his conviction after a trial.

There has been a rather lengthy delay from the date of the conviction to this point, in part to allow the preparation of reports. In addition, when the matter last came before me for sentencing, it was apparent to me, as the matter proceeded, that Mr. Main was not in any condition to be listening to or comprehending or participating as was required in the process. That circumstance has been explained to some extent by the psychiatric evaluation that has now been completed. It was not available on the last occasion because Mr. Main had not attended a scheduled appointment.

I will be referring to that psychiatric evaluation in the course of my reasons. [ 3 ] Mr. Main was convicted on two counts for offences that occurred on the 26th to 27th of October of 2020. The events occurred sometime after 10 p.m. on the 26th and perhaps into the early morning hours of the 27th of October. The offences are the robbery of Gordon Harmon and break and enter a dwelling house, the residence of Mr. Harmon, with the intent to commit an indictable offence. [ 4 ] For efficiency, I do not intend to review the facts in great detail. They are contained in my reasons for judgment on conviction. In a

summary form, the accused, Mr. Main, and another unidentified male entered the motel room which was the residence of the complainant and victim. The complainant was involved at least in the use and likely in the sale of illicit drugs and had in his possession at that time a number of those drugs contained in a bag. [ 5 ] Mr. Main was known to the complainant as they had been friends for some time prior to these events. The complainant was in his room asleep. His female friend, who I simply will refer to as “A.M.”, was present and was watching TV.

The accused and the other unidentified male entered the residence sometime after 10 p.m. wearing masks and they were hooded. Each was armed; one with a hammer, the other with a taser-type baton. [ 6 ] The complainant was initially struck by the unidentified male. He was ultimately struck a number of times in and about his body, including his head, but Mr. Main’s specific role in the physical assault is unclear.

It is apparent from the facts, and it was and is my conclusion, that the accused and the other did act in concert in their attendance and in ransacking the room, apparently looking for the complainant’s wallet. Stolen from the residence, as I indicated, were among other things, drug and drug paraphernalia that the complainant had. [ 7 ] The incident in the room lasted approximately ten minutes and the complainant was indeed injured. He attended the hospital on his own. There is limited information as to any long-term effects of his injuries, but it appears that he may have been concussed.

He referenced a skull fracture, although I am not aware of specific medical evidence that confirms that. Suffice it to say it was, in the scheme of things, a relatively significant assault. [ 8 ] In terms of the circumstances of Mr. Main, I have for assistance a pre-sentence report, the aforementioned psychiatric evaluation and what is referred to as a psycho-educational assessment report completed in October of 2019, unrelated to these matters, by the

School District 22. Mr. Main is now 22 years of age. He was born in Kamloops. His mother, Carla Buholzer, and again, I apologize if I am mispronouncing that name, and his father, Jeff Main, are here and have indicated support and have provided some support to Mr. Main of late. He has three adult siblings. Mr. Main’s parents separated when he was 8 years of age and it would appear that was a somewhat of a traumatic event for him.

Despite that, by all accounts he had a positive childhood and described as having fond memories of participating in sports such as hockey, basketball, and baseball, being engaged in positive family endeavours. [ 9 ] He struggled in school and has been reported as having an intellectual disability. He attended several different schools in the Vernon area through Grade 8 and was placed in an alternative learning program in April of 2015. That was through what has been named the Open Door Learning Center, a supportive learning and somewhat less formal learning setting.

He obtained his Evergreen Certificate, which is not a graduation but rather an acknowledgement of success in pursuit of learning. [ 10 ] He has a very limited work history, having held only entry level, short-term positions including McDonald’s, a local restaurant, and Walmart, each being for a matter of months. There is some indication that he also worked with his father on construction-related job sites. Again, I infer from the evidence that this was in relatively short-term engagements. [ 11 ] Beginning at approximately age 15 his trajectory began to be influenced by drug use.

That began with marihuana and evolved into the use of methamphetamines and heroin. He has never attended treatment for his substance use, and the pre-sentence report contains an indication that Mr. Main lacks insight into his substance abuse and presents as being ambivalent when discussing the subject. [ 12 ] The psycho-educational assessment from 2019 found Mr. Main’s cognitive abilities were not consistent with his chronological age.

His verbal communication was low, his working memory was identified as extremely low, his reasoning index was very low with limited vocabulary, poor listening skills, limited comprehension and poor reasoning abilities. It also noted—this from the pre-sentence report referencing the psycho-educational assessment—he did not display age-appropriate behaviour and is below average in behavioural, social, and emotional functioning. [ 13 ] The psychiatric evaluation, which was conducted in December of 2022, indicated that at that time Mr.

Main was homeless and living on the streets, having been banned from a shelter about a month prior to his meeting with the report preparers. He had spent some brief time with his mother. That report includes the following comments: Neither the transcribers nor I have a copy of the psych evaluation, in order to confirm this quote as well as the quote at para. 29 below: He [that is, Mr. Main] appears to have poor insight into his difficulties, which appear primarily to be related to his substance use disorder, developmental disability and ADHD.

He does not appear to have any current violent ideation or intent or any symptoms of major mental disorder other than physical agitation and difficulty concentrating related to his ADHD when untreated. He does appear to have significant instability in terms of housing, support and treatment, only very recently getting back on medication from his family doctor. His accommodation has been tenuous and subject to homelessness and limited community resources, and it appears that his response to treatment and supervision has been poor.

He is very likely to have ongoing problems with professional services and plans given his immaturity, his variable compliance with medication and instability in the community. Various agencies have had difficulty supporting him to receive follow up and treatment. He has an unstable living situation, as by his report up until a few days prior to our meeting he had literally been living in cardboard boxes and plastic bags on the street. His personal and support is likely to be limited, based on difficulties his family have in interacting with him in the past.

His response to treatment and supervision is very likely to remain poor unless and until he achieves more support around accommodation, substance use treatment and ongoing ADHD treatment. He is likely to have problems coping with stress in the future through problematic strategies such as substance use or acting out in a way that is intolerable to those around him. [ 14 ] Counsel placed numerous authorities before me. I do not intend to review those in any detail. I would direct, Madam Clerk, that indexes of those books of authorities be attached if my reasons are to be transcribed.

I have reviewed those authorities and counsel have taken me through them, and I have taken them into account in formulating my decision . [ 15 ] Any sentencing must consider the principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code , particularly ss. 718 through 718.2. Counsel have also referenced the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Parranto which addresses sentencing ranges and cautions against trial courts feeling hamstrung, if you will, by such ranges.

That is obviously an oversimplification of what is a very substantial decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 16 ] The authorities referenced are useful precedents, but as in any sentencing there are always various facts that distinguish them. They serve as useful guidelines in applying the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code . [ 17 ] The positions of the Crown and defence with respect to sentencing here are essentially these.

The Crown says that a sentence of seven to eight years in custody less credit for time served is appropriate, together with ancillary orders regarding firearms prohibitions, DNA and a victim fine surcharge. The defence position is that a sentence of two years less a day to be followed by three years of probation is appropriate.

Both Crown and defence agree that enhanced credit for time served, which has been calculated and I accept as accurate, to be 395 days; that is 263 days of actual time in custody which, using a formula that I have used in the past, and the Crown has used here, translates into 13 months’ credit. [ 18 ] So, to summarize the Crown position is seven to eight years less 13 months. The defence position is two years less 13 months. [ 19 ] In advancing the position for Mr.

Main, his counsel relies heavily on the fact of his drug addiction and his cognitive and intellectual challenges to support an argument for diminished moral culpability. Specifically, in terms of mitigating factors, counsel for Mr. Main references his age, as I indicated, 22 now, 20 at the time of the offence, his limited adult record—I intend to refer to his record further—and as I have referenced, his low cognitive abilities and drug addiction which are relied upon in support of an assertion of reduced moral culpability.

[ 20 ] The Crown acknowledges age is a mitigating factor but points to various aggravating factors. Those include, pursuant to s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code , the fact that the victim was in his home at the time of the offence, that it involved multiple perpetrators; that is, the accused and the unidentified male, the use of masks and hoods to hide their identities, the use of weapons, the fact that the victim was known to Mr. Main and the theft of drug and drug paraphernalia. [ 21 ] From the authorities that have been presented to me, I find the decision which happens to be a decision that I rendered in R. v.

Houle , 2022 BCSC 1061 helpful. In that decision I spent a considerable time reviewing cases identifying features of what have been described as home invasion offences, as well as authorities that have imposed sentences, including the Chudley decision for home invasion type offences. Within that decision is the following: [16] In R. v. Chudley , 2016 BCCA 90 , the Court reviewed what it categorized as general sentencing principles applicable to home invasion cases at paragraphs 22 to 27 as follows: [22] There is no single offence of “home invasion”.

Instead, the term is used as a shorthand expression describing a combination of offences involving breaking and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a robbery, with knowledge or recklessness as to whether the dwelling is occupied. They also often involve the confinement, terrorizing or assault of the occupants: Bernier at paras. 81, 97.

This Court has held that caution is required in suggesting a general range of sentences for home invasions because the term lacks precision and the combinations of crimes changed in each individual case will vary: Bernier at paras. 37, 81-82. [23] That being said, s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code deems a home invasion to be an aggravating circumstance for certain offence in relation to a dwelling. It reads: If a person is convicted of an offence under

section 98 [break and enter during which a firearm is stolen] or 98.1 [robbery during which a firearm is stolen], subsection 279(2) [unlawful confinement] or sections 343 [robbery], 346 [extortion] or 348 [break and enter with intent] in relation to a dwelling-house, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence, (

a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house was occupied; and (

b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property. [24] Further, this Court has recognized several sentencing principles that are normally engaged in home invasion type cases. First, in R. v. Vickers , 2007 BCCA 554 , the Court held that deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors in sentencing for violent crimes, especially when these crimes violate the safety and security of a person’s home: para. 12. As Madam Justice Saunders observed in R. v.

Meigs , 2007 BCCA 394 at para. 25 : “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” [25] Second, with respect to rehabilitation, this Court in Vickers stated that while it cannot be overlooked, it is of secondary importance.

This is particularly true when there is no indication that the offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation or when he or she has demonstrated a history of violence: Vickers at paras. 13, 15 . [26] Third, the “step principle” - the idea that sentences should only be increased in moderate steps to avoid an adverse impact on the offender’s chances of rehabilitation - is generally not helpful when the dominant sentencing factor is protection of the public: Vickers at para.16. Also, the “step principle” generally only applies when rehabilitation is a significant sentencing consideration: R. v.

McCallum , 2004 BCCA 341 at para. 10 [27] Fourth, higher sentences are appropriate when serious injuries are inflicted: Vickers at para. 19 .

In A.J.C. at para. 42, then Chief Justice Finch stated that a 14 or 15 year sentence may be appropriate in “the most aggravated circumstances where a ‘home invasion’ involves not only a break and enter to commit robbery, the terrorizing and confinement of victims, and the use of weapons to achieve these objectives, but also the infliction of serious injuries, sexual assault or death.” [17] I will, however, refer to paragraph 25 where the Court says: … with respect to rehabilitation, this Court in Vickers stated that while it cannot be overlooked, it is of secondary importance.

This is particularly true when there is no indication that the offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation or when he or she has demonstrated a history of violence … [18] It references the qualified consideration of moderate steps in the application of the so-called ‘step principle’ and noted that higher sentences are appropriate when serious injuries are inflicted. [19] In R. v.

Steinhauer , a decision of this Court at 2016 BCSC 1322 , Madam Justice Devlin said this at paragraph 72: In my view, there is no need to parse away the different numbers or ranges referred to in these cases, as ranges serve merely as a guideline for any sentencing. As can be seen from my review of the cases, there is a broad range in the sentences imposed in home invasion type cases. The range is due to a number of factors, including the nature and extent of involvement, use of a firearm, the degree of violence involved, and the criminal record.

The cases consistently state, though, that in these types of offences, the paramount consideration in sentencing is deterrence and denunciation, given that these crimes violate the safety and security of a person's home. [20] Finally, in terms of references that I intend to make to the authorities, in R. v. Laramee , 2017 BCSC 1799 , Justice MacNaughton said this at paragraph 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. [ 22 ] In that decision the accused and another had entered a condominium complex and went to a unit within that complex with a knife in hand and a pistol-style pellet gun. There were two young women in the unit together with a Mr. Dayrit. The individuals were pepper sprayed and items were stolen from the unit before they departed. [ 23 ] Mr.

Houle had a serious and related prior record that included prior convictions for robbery, the last of which had an effective sentence of 40 months, and he had only recently been released prior to the offence that was before me at the time. His record had 49 convictions, 14 of which related to breach, four assault police officers, five assaults, two prior robberies and one attempted robbery, and obviously other offences. There were some positive indicators for optimism in terms of Mr. Houle’s rehabilitation, and I imposed a five- year sentence. [ 24 ] Here, Mr. Main has a prior criminal history.

All of his prior convictions were as they—and when I say prior , prior to the offence date involved here, were as a youth. One of them in 2015 was for a robbery where I am told he and a number of other youths assaulted a male individual and took his bicycle. It is of note that following that Mr. Main spent time at Burnaby Youth Custody Services and attended Camp Trapping. It would appear from the reports that he responded positively to the structure of that environment.

He has adult convictions, all of which are, I would say, compliance-type offences and all of which post-dated the offence date here. [ 25 ] I have no difficulty saying that Mr. Main’s circumstances here present a real challenge in sentencing. Sentencing is often a difficult process and there are often features of the circumstances of an individual and the circumstances of the offence and the principles of sentencing that tend to pull in different directions.

Certainly, denunciation and deterrence are important considerations in any offence that is properly characterized as a home invasion or has elements of what has been referred to as a home invasion type of offence. Certainly, those elements exist here. There are often features that, in considering the principles of sentencing, draw a sentencing court away from imposing lengthy periods of custody. Age and Mr. Main’s challenges, cognitively and otherwise are examples here. [ 26 ] There are indications that much more recently and currently Mr.

Main is splitting time between his mother and father and that they have been providing support. His mother has written a letter which is before me on the sentence proceedings where she again, not unlike Mr. Main through his counsel, referenced him seemingly having fallen through the cracks and having struggled to, what she describes, get a fair chance at establishing himself in a more socially acceptable lifestyle. [ 27 ] As I indicated, Mr. Main clearly participated in this offence.

I do not accept that he was dragged into it or that he had any lack of knowledge of the purpose of the attendance or that he was not a participant, although I do not attach to him any significant role in the physical assault component of it. The fact of his intellectual and cognitive issues combined with the drug addiction complicate, certainly, the prospects for his rehabilitation. [ 28 ] As I have noted, these are very serious offences.

Any robbery that is associated to drugs and the drug trade has very high risk for the community and risks for escalated violence. [ 29 ] The psychiatric evaluation contains some recommendations, given the challenges presented by Mr. Main. They note that those challenges will make his supervision and treatment in the future problematic. This is from the report: 1. . . . These include mild intellectual disability, ADHD and substance use disorder, which most recently has involved opioids and methamphetamines.

His disorder is severe and has caused serious complications, including overdose and substance induced psychosis. 2. The treatment that could provide greatest benefit for him would be a substance use treatment programme, perhaps in a residential setting and which catered to his intellectual disability. Remaining on treatment for ADHD, with safeguards against him abusing such medication, should help him find some stability. 3. Supportive housing would also be very helpful for him, but will require engagement with various services in the community.

Without stable accommodation, it will be very difficult to deliver treatment and assist him to achieve goals such as getting back to work. He would also likely derive stability from support to manage his finances. 4. An assertive package of support from a multidisciplinary team in the community could assist Mr. Main and reduce his risk of reoffending. Without such support and treatments outlined above his risk of reoffending, including violent offences will remain moderate to high.

It should be noted that though eligible for CLBC services, it is a voluntary service that only works with individuals who are willing to accept their services. [ 30 ] Having regard to all of that, it is my conclusion that an appropriate effective sentence would be in the order of three years here. My intention in light of that is to impose a sentence of two years less a day.

That will be the new time that is imposed, giving him credit for the time that he has served, which I equate to 13 months. [ 31 ] I will say without reservation that I do that in part recognizing and relying on the Houle decision, his less current and less serious criminal record, his age and his cognitive and other difficulties. It also serves to allow for, following his completion of his time in custody, an extensive period of probation. This, in keeping with the psychiatric evaluation, seems likely to provide the opportunity for the best possible outcome.

Accordingly, the two years less of day of actual time that I sentence him to will be followed by a period of three years of probation. [ 32 ] Mr. Main, you can have a seat now. I appreciate you standing while I imposed the sentence but reviewing the probation terms is going to take a few moments, so I will simplify the process by having you take a seat. [ 33 ] Madam Clerk, I am going to reference what I hope is the current pick list, as it were, for the probation terms. Item 2001: You

must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so. You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court of any change of employment or occupation. [ 34 ] Item 2002: You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Gordon Harmon. [ 35 ] Item 2005: You must not be within 100 metres of any place where you know or believe Mr. Harmon lives, works, attends school, worships or happens to be.

If you see him, you must leave his presence immediately without any words or gestures. [ 36 ] Item 2202: When first reporting to your probation officer you must provide them with the address where you live and your phone number. You must not change your address or phone number without notifying your probation officer in writing. [ 37 ] Counsel, in light of the recommendations I am inclined to impose that he live at an address approved of by his probation officer. I am intending, and I want to clarify though you, Ms.

Verdurmen, that he would be agreeable to attending any counselling as directed, taking medications as prescribed including any residential treatment that would be recommended, and in that respect, the address as approved would seem to marry up with those objectives. Any difficulty with any of that? [ 38 ] CNSL D. VERDUMEN: Mr. Main is consenting to counselling.

I’m not sure that residential treatment, though, is something that he’s open to, Justice. [ 39 ] THE COURT: Well, that is a serious concern to me, if he is opposed to that because it is one of the hallmarks, it seems to me, in the psychiatric recommendations. I am not sure that I require his consent. It would certainly be something that I am inclined to impose. [ 40 ] CNSL D.

VERDUMEN: It would be in his best interest, Justice, and the conditions could therefore marry up afterwards, the address as approved. [ 41 ] THE COURT: All right, so I will include, Madam Clerk, item 2203: You must live at an address approved of in advance by your probation officer, and you must not change the address without prior permission of your probation officer. [ 42 ] I will make a requirement, as well, item 2101, that he report—and my inclination generally is within 72 hours of his release from custody unless there is any other suggestion, just to initiate the process after he is released.

I presume that would be in Vernon. [ 43 ] CNSL D. VERDUMEN: Yes, Justice. [ 44 ] THE COURT: All right, so Madam Clerk, item 2104: You must report in person to a probation officer—sorry, I do not have the Vernon probation office address, does counsel have that? [ 45 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: It’s 3101-29th Avenue. [ 46 ] THE CLERK: Yes, that is [indiscernible/not at microphone]. [ 47 ] THE COURT: All right, fair enough.

Within, I am going to say, 72 hours of your release from custody, and thereafter report as and when and in the manner directed by your probation officer. [ 48 ] You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs or any intoxicating substance except with a medical prescription. Item—sorry, Madam Clerk, that is 2401. [ 49 ] 2501: You must attend, participate in and complete any intake, assessment, counselling or education program as directed by your probation officer.

That is to include, as required, any alcohol or drug addiction programming, mental health programming and is to include residential treatment if so directed. [ 50 ] Are there any other terms and conditions of the probation order that counsel would be suggesting? [ 51 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Crown would be asking for a condition of—I’m not sure—I apologize, I may have over—misheard that, a no weapons condition. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Yes, all right, I am going to make the weapons prohibition order, but I will also include it as a term of the probation order.

Item 2610: You must not possess, directly or indirectly, any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code , including firearms and ammunition, crossbows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices or explosive substances, anything used, designed to be used—excuse me—or intended to be used in causing death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person, any imitation of all of the above including any compressed airguns or BB/pellet guns or any related authorizations, licences and registration certificates, and you must not apply for any of these. [ 53 ] Anything else? [ 54 ] CNSL B.

BELLRICHARD: No, Justice, thank you. [ 55 ] CNSL D. VERDUMEN: Nothing else arising, thanks. [ 56 ] THE COURT: All right. I will make the ancillary orders that both counsel indicated they were content with. That is, that there is a mandatory lifetime firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 109 and there will be an order that Mr. Main provide a sample of DNA, this being—or at least one of the offences being a primary designated offence, I believe that is Count 1. [ 57 ] I will waive the victim fine surcharge. Anything else?

[ 58 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Just for clarity of the record, is it—the sentence is applicable to both counts concurrent to each other? [ 59 ] THE COURT: Yes, to be clear, that is concurrent on each of Counts 1 and 2. [ 60 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Thank you. And in terms of the sentence, my—my notes, so are you suggesting it’s a 30-month sentence less one day, taking in mind his credit of 13 months to two year less a day, starting today? [ 61 ] THE COURT: Three years less one day. [ 62 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Oh, thank you. [ 63 ] THE COURT: So that translates into new time of two years less one day. [ 64 ] CNSL B.

BELLRICHARD: There’s—the record, he had 13 months of enhanced credit. [ 65 ] THE COURT: Oh, I am sorry. So sorry, it is three years, so it will be 20—sorry. That is my error. It will be three years is what I would have imposed. Sorry. What I do impose. Less the credit for time served, so that will be 23 months. [ 66 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Thank you. [ 67 ] CNSL D. VERDURMEN: Thank you, Justice. [ 68 ] THE COURT: Sorry, my apologies for that lack of clarity. [ 69 ] CNSL B. BELLRICHARD: Thank you. [ 70 ] THE COURT: Anything else? [ 71 ] CNSL D. VERDURMEN: Nothing else, thank you. [ 72 ] CNSL B.

BELLRICHARD: No Justice, thank you very much. [ 73 ] THE COURT: Thank you. “Betton J.” Appendix A 1. R. v. Houle , 2022 BCSC 1061 2. R. v. James , 2019 BCSC 886 3. R. v. Smith , 2020 BCCA 87 4. R. v. Ridgeway , 2017 BCSC 1472 5. R. v. Araki , 2005 BCSC 978 6. R. v. Chudley , 2016 BCCA 90 7. R. v. Parranto , 2021 SCC 46 8. R. v. Mariash , 2016 BCSC 759 9. R. v. Kurt , 2021 QCCQ 14054 10. R. v. Badhesa , 2019 BCCA 70 11. R. v. Hockley , 2013 BCSC 113 12. R. v. Bomba , 2019 BCSC 1622 13. R. v. Vaux , 2021 BCSC 1773